APPENDIX A 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

• Table A-1: EAW – EA Reference

• Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Form

• Table A-2: Township, Range, and Sections

• Level 1, 2 and 3 Studies Description 

NLX Environmental Assessment A - 1 February 2013 

Table A.1. Minnesota EAW – FRA EA Reference

Minnesota EAW Form Item EA Section

1. Project Title Cover

2. Proposer Cover, 1.0

3. RGU Cover, 1.0

4. Reason for EAW preparation 1.0

5. Project location 2.1, Appendix A

6. Description 2.2, 3.2 

7. Project magnitude data 3.2

8. Permits and approvals required 2.6

9. Land Use 4.1

10. Cover types 4.3

11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources 4.3

12. Physical impacts on water resources 4.4, 4.5

13. Water use 4.5

14. Water-related land use management district 4.5

15. Water surface use 4.5

16. Erosion and sedimentation 4.5

17. Water quality: surface water runoff 4.5

18. Water quality: wastewater 4.5

19. Geological hazards and soil conditions 4.10

20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks 4.8

21. Traffic 4.2

22. Vehicle-related air emissions. 4.6

23. Stationary source air emissions. NA

24. Odors, noise and dust. 4.7

25a. Archeological, historical or architectural resources 4.9

25b. Prime or unique farmlands 4.10

25c. Designated parks, recreation areas or trails 4.11

25d. Scenic views and vistas 4.12

25e. Other unique resources NA

26. Visual impacts 4.12

27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. 4.1

28. Impact on infrastructure and public service. 4.2, 4.13

29. Cumulative potential effects. 4.16

30. Other potential environmental impacts. NA

31. Summary of issues Executive Summary
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 2 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 3 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 4 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 5 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 6 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 7 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 8 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 9 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 10 February 2013 

Table A.2. Township, Range, Sections within the NLX Corridor

Minnesota

Township (N), Range (W) Sections

29,24 02, 03, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23

30, 24 03, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34

31, 24 02, 11, 14, 23, 26, 35, 36

32, 24 02, 11, 14, 23, 26, 35

33, 24 01, 12, 13, 23, 24, 26, 35

34, 23 06, 07, 18, 19, 30

34, 24 25, 36

35, 23 05, 08, 17, 20, 29, 30, 31

36, 23 03, 10, 15, 16, 21, 28, 32, 33

37, 23 02, 11, 14, 22, 23, 27, 34

38, 22 06, 07

38, 23 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 35

39, 22 05, 08, 17, 19, 20, 30, 31

40, 21 06,

40, 22 01, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33

41, 20 05, 06, 07, 18

41, 21 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34

42, 20 01, 02, 09, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 29, 32

43, 19 02, 03, 09, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 30, 31

43, 20 36, 

44, 18 03, 09, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 30

44, 19 25, 35, 36

45, 17 04, 05, 08,17, 18,19

45, 18 24, 25, 26, 34, 35

46, 15 06,

46, 16 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

46, 17 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34

49, 14 04, 05, 07, 08, 17, 18, 27, 33, 34

Wisconsin

Township (N), Range (W) Sections

46, 15 4, 6

47, 14 4, 8 ,9, 17, 19, 20

47, 15 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34

48, 14 03, 10, 15, 22, 27, 28, 33

49, 14 08, 15, 16, 17, 22, 27, 34

 
NLX Environmental Assessment A - 11 February 2013 

NLX: Alternative Development Studies 

• Northern Lights Express High Speed Rail Corridor Assessment Report, Level 1 Screening 

Report (Steps 1, 2 and 3), dated December 29, 2009, Revised June 2010. Level 1 is an initial 

screening of rail alternatives, addressing operational characteristics, investment requirements, 

and environmental constraints at a broad conceptual level. 

• Northern Lights Express Technical Memorandum: Functional Analysis of Routes 9, 11 and 

11A (Level 2 Analysis), dated December 2010. Level 2 assesses the functional characteristics 

(capital improvements, travel time, ridership, revenue and benefit-cost) to determine if 

alternatives still under consideration following the Level 1 screen could be further narrowed 

before proceeding into detailed environmental analysis for the Environmental Assessment. 

• Northern Lights Express Passenger Rail Project Concept-Level Engineering Report, Level 3 

Analysis, Routes 9, 11 and 11a, dated April 2011, revised June 2011. Level 3 analysis 

includes development of conceptual engineering of Routes 9, 11 and 11a and includes a more 

detailed capital cost estimate based on this concept engineering.

APPENDIX B 

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

• Alternatives Analysis 

• NLX Level 1 Analysis – Track Segment Descriptions

• FRA and MnDOT Correspondence

NLX Environmental Assessment B - 1 February 2013 

Alternatives Analysis

Introduction

In accordance with FRA guidance, a three-level evaluation methodology was utilized to conduct 

an alternative analysis of potential rail corridors connecting Minneapolis and Duluth. Level 1 is 

an initial screening of rail alternatives, addressing operational characteristics, investment 

requirements, and environmental constraints at a broad conceptual level. Level 1 results in a 

reduced set of viable rail alternatives that are subjected to a more detailed process in Levels 2 

and 3. Level 2 examines ridership and operations in more detail, done only when Level 1 

screening identifies more than one reasonable rail alternative. Level 3 is a detailed evaluation of 

the rail alternatives surviving Levels 1 and 2 screening, and addresses operational and 

environmental issues as compared with other transportation modes such as intercity bus as well 

as the No Build alternative. 

The three-level alternatives analysis process was initially carried out by the project team in 

consultation with agency stakeholders in fall of 2009. Consultation with FRA staff in early 2010 

resulted in the purpose and need statement being revised and additional alternatives being 

identified for analysis. The routes were added because the Purpose and Need of the project was 

revised to indicate terminal station in Minneapolis. Since Minneapolis was chosen as the 

terminal, routes were added to provide service to St. Paul Union Depot. This is noted below, 

where relevant.

Level 1

The Level 1 screening for alternatives includes three steps. 

In Step 1 a universe of route alternatives for passenger rail service between Minneapolis and 

Duluth were identified. 17 passenger rail routes extending as far west as Staples, Minnesota and 

as far east as Trego, Wisconsin, were identified. Four others were identified during the fall of 

2009 process (Routes 10A, 11A, 12A, and 13A); two were added following FRA consultation in 

early 2010 (Routes 11 and 11A). See Figure X in Appendix A. 

In Step 2, each of the seventeen route alternatives were screened according to the three criteria:

1. Route distance – from end point to end point. 

2. Population and population centers – route corridor populations (2000 Census data; within a 

20-mile band of each route (10 mile each side), and within a 20-mile radius of each of 

terminal stations in Minneapolis and Duluth) were compiled and used as an estimate of 

potential ridership. 

3. The presence of route defects – conditions that would make the construction or operation of a 

passenger rail particularly costly or difficult. Any defects that would effectively prohibit rail 

line construction or operation and could not be mitigation were considered “untenable 

defects” and eliminated a route from further screening.
NLX Environmental Assessment B - 2 February 2013 

Based on the analysis, each route was assessed as either “comparable” or “unfavorable” with 

respect to each of the criteria. The comparable/unfavorable assessments were tallied for each 

route, and nine routes were eliminated from consideration (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 

13A). None of the routes added in early 2010 were eliminated as a result of Step 2 analysis. 

In Step 3, the eight surviving routes (Routes 8, 9, 10, 10A, 11, 11A, 12 and 12A) underwent a 

more thorough quantitative screening and evaluation process. Step 3 included both a technical 

evaluation as well as a prioritization of evaluation criteria and scoring of alternatives conducted 

at a screening workshop. The process is detailed in the Northern Lights Express High Speed 

Rail: Corridor Assessment Report and is summarized here.

The technical evaluation consisted of an analysis of potential environmental impacts and cost 

and operational concerns. The environmental analysis was intended to determine what 

environmental factors would render a corridor infeasible or imprudent due to environmental 

concerns, or discriminate further between the five routes and assist in further screening the 

remaining corridor alternatives. Given the overall length and distribution of the corridors to be 

assessed as well as the number of corridors, the methodology for the environmental scan was 

based on readily available data that could be easily assessed for potential significance, and 

addresses federal requirements for avoidance, or secondarily, mitigation, for specific resources 

including historic and archaeological sites, parks and wildlife refuges, wetlands, threatened and 

endangered species, floodplains, and federally-designated wild and scenic rivers. In addition, the 

potential for cost and liability concerns resulting from impacts to EPA-listed “superfund” sites

was addressed. 

The analysis concluded that the only environmental factor that discriminated among the eight 

candidate routes at this phase of the project development was the presence of state trails within 

the corridor. Numerous and comparable historic and archaeological sites and wetlands were 

present at each of the candidate corridors and detailed comparisons of impacts to these resources 

could not be assessed at this stage of project development. Potential impacts to state parks, major 

rivers crossings and superfund sites were anticipated to be low, or had potential to be avoided or 

mitigation through project design. However, construction of a rail facility in state trail corridors 

was determined to be difficult for the project as the corridors had been fully abandoned without 

reversionary clauses, and further, to have a significant impact on these valued public facilities as 

relocation or mitigation within the existing corridor would be extremely difficult. 

The operational and cost analysis addressed speed profiles and route travel times, the locations of 

existing and potential intermodal stations along each route, ridership potential based on route 

populations, and cost of improvements. 
NLX Environmental Assessment B - 3 February 2013 

3.1.3 Level 2/3

Screening Workshop 

Twenty-five stakeholders representing the Steering Committee and agencies participated in an 

interactive workshop on November 23, 2009 to select the one or more reasonable alternatives 

that would be subjected to the next level screening. Details of the screening workshop are 

presented in the Northern Lights Express High Speed Rail: Corridor Assessment Report. The 

workshop included review of the draft purpose and need statement, presentation of the Step 1 

and Step 2 findings (as had been developed to date, not including routes 10A, 11A, and 12A), 

development of evaluation criteria (and weights based on importance) for the remaining routes, 

scoring of the routes against these criteria, and selection of routes for Level 2/3 evaluation. The 

evaluation included: 

• Travel Time – the estimated route travel time between end points

• Proximity to Markets (Ridership) – population within 20 miles of the route and the terminal 

stations

• Conflicts with Freight or Future Rail Purposes – ability for high speed passenger rail to 

coexist successfully with freight rail

• Conflicts with Existing Ownership – transfer of corridor ownership to another entity with no 

reversionary clause

• System Connectivity – intermodal connections such as Amtrak, bus, commuter rail, Light 

Rail Transit, air, and intra-state connectivity (i.e. connections to Rochester, Eau Claire, 

Mankato) 

• Capital Costs -- rough estimate for comparing routes against each other 

• Political/Public Support - the perceived level of political/public support, either for or against, 

that a route has or would have should it be selected 

The scoring matrix detailing the evaluation criteria and criteria weights is shown in Table B-1. 

The scoring results are shown in Table B-2 (1=very poor, 2=poor, 3=good, 4=very good and 

5=excellent). Route 9 was the highest scoring route with an average weighted score of 4.15, with 

Route 11 the second highest with a score of 3.51. Routes 8, 10, and 12 scored significantly 

lower. 
NLX Environmental Assessment B - 4 February 2013 

Table B-1- Final Route Alternatives Scoring Matrix

Evaluation 

Criteria

Criteria 

Weight

Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12 

Travel time 9 3.4 30.6 5 45.0 2.2 19.8 4 36.0 2 18.0

Proximity to 

Markets / Ridership 9 4 36.0 3.8 34.2 4 36.0 4 36.0 2.4 21.6

Conflict w/Freight, 

Future Rail Use 5.4 2.8 15.1 2.2 11.9 4.2 22.7 3.2 17.3 4.2 22.7

Conflict w/Existing 

Ownership 7.6 1.4 10.6 4.2 31.9 1.2 9.1 3.2 24.3 1.4 10.6

System 

Connectivity 6.6 4 26.4 3.8 25.1 3.2 21.1 3.2 21.1 2 13.2

Capital Cost 8.8 2.4 21.1 5 44.0 1.2 10.6 3 26.4 1.2 10.6

Political and Public 

Support 6.4 1.8 11.5 4.2 26.9 1.8 11.5 3.8 24.3 1.4 9.0

Total 151.4 219.0 130.8 185.4 105.6

Weighted Average 2.87 4.15 2.48 3.51 2.00

The participants agreed that Routes 8, 10, and 12 did not score high enough to warrant further 

consideration. One participant questioned whether either Route 8 or Route 10 would be scored 

higher if these routes continued along the Munger Trail into Duluth. It was agreed that, although 

the newly identified route segment would not likely increase the score such that either Routes 8 

or 10 were one of the two highest scoring routes, this new segment should be analyzed in order 

to thoroughly evaluate all alternatives.[NOTE: This resulted in Munger Trail Analysis memo 

from the Corridor Assessment Report.] 

As noted, four more routes were added to the analysis: Routes 10A, 11A, 12A, and 13A after the 

workshop and survived the Step 2 analysis. 

Since these additional routes were not evaluated in the workshop, a Step 3 scoring analysis was 

performed on Routes 10A, 11A, and 12A by the project team. 

The results of the scoring for Routes 9, 10A, 11, 11A, and 12A are shown in Table B-2. 
NLX Environmental Assessment B - 5 February 2013 

Table B-2 - Summary Scoring Table

Routes 10A, 11A, and 12A vs. Two Highest-Scoring Route Alternatives

 

1 Please note that this score reflects environmental impacts resulting from necessary location of recreational trails built on fully abandoned right of way.

Route 9 Route 10A Route 11 Route 11A Route 12A

Criteria Criteria 

Weight

Raw 

Score

Weighted 

Score

Raw 

Score

Weighted 

Score

Raw 

Score

Weighted 

Score

Raw 

Score

Weighted 

Score

Raw 

Score

Weighted 

Score

Travel Time 9 5 45 1.4 12.6 4 36 2.9 26.1 1.4 12.6

Proximity to Markets 

(Population) 9 3.8 34.2 4.2 37.8 4 36 4.2 37.8 2.6 23.4

System Connectivity 6.6 3.8 25.08 4 26.4 3.2 21.12 4 26.4 4 26.4

Conflicts w future rail 

purposes

5.4 2.2 11.88 3.5 18.9 3.2 17.28 2.8 15.12 3.5 18.9

Conflict w Existing 

Ownership1 7.6 4.2 31.92 1.2 9.12 3.2 24.32 3.2 24.32 1.4 10.64

Capital Costs 8.8 5 44 1.2 10.56 3 26.4 2.4 21.12 1.2 10.56

Political/Public Support 6.4 4.2 26.88 4.2 26.88 3.8 24.32 4.2 26.88 4.2 26.88

Total Score 218.96 142.26 185.44 177.74 129.88

Weighted Average Score 4.15 2.81 3.51 3.38 2.68

Weighted Average Difference vs. 

Highest Score - -1.34 -0.64 -0.77 -1.47
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 6 February 2013 

Table B-3 summarizes the screening steps used for the screening of the NLX.

Table B-3 – Summary of Level 1 Screening Steps

Screening 

Step Screening Tasks Description and Results

Step 1 Alternative Routes 

Identification

Identification of all route alternatives

Result: Thirteen Potential Route Alternatives Identified

Step 2

Preliminary 

Analysis of Rail 

Routes 

Preliminary Analysis of route alternatives

Result: Five of Thirteen Route Alternatives Survive 

Screening Step 2

Step 3 Quantitative 

Analysis

Analysis of route alternatives surviving Step 2, including 

speed profiles, travel times, ridership, intermodal stations, 

capital costs, and environmental issues 

Result: Analysis and documentation developed for use in 

Level 1 Screening Workshop 

Level 1 

Screening 

Workshop 

NLX Stakeholder 

Workshop 

Evaluation and scoring of route alternatives by stakeholders 

Result: Quantitative route evaluations 

Level 1 

Screening 

Report 

Summary of 

Alternatives 

Analysis Level 1 

Screening

Summary and Results of Screening Process

Result: Recommendation of route alternative for next level 

of screening 

Functional 

Analysis of 

Routes 9, 

11, and 

11A

Supplement to 

Level 1 Screening 

Report 

Assesses the functional characteristics (capital 

improvements, travel time, ridership, revenue, and 

benefit/cost) of Routes 9, 11, and 11A 

Result: Recommendation of Route 9 as the locally preferred 

alternative

Of the eight routes evaluated in Step 3, the top three scoring routes included Route 9 with a 

weighted average score of 4.15, Route 11 with a score of 3.51 and Route 11A with a score of 

3.38. While a stop at St. Paul Union Depot augments Routes 11 and 11A in terms of access to 

markets and future connectivity and results in a lower potential for freight rail conflicts, 

significant differences in travel time, capital investment, and potential environmental impacts 

result in a significantly higher score for Route 9. 

In terms of the capital cost criterion, these scores reflect a significant qualitative difference 

between Route 9 and 11 - the maturity of the right of way for build-out for a high speed rail 

system. Route 9 possesses greater “maturity” in that existing rail service exists within the rightof-way allowing a passenger rail system to be developed using the infrastructure already in place 
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 7 February 2013 

for freight operation. In contrast, Route 11 requires reconstruction of this infrastructure for a 

significant portion of the corridor south of Hinckley, as that infrastructure has been removed. 

Furthermore, the purpose and need identified cost constraints as a definite consideration in 

project development. The NLX Alliance Board and Steering Committee anticipate that this 

project will be fiscally constrained. Therefore, the ability of the project route to provide 

sufficient design flexibility necessary to reduce construction costs when needed while fulfilling 

project objective will be imperative to project implementation. 

Route 9 provides opportunities for further cost reduction by reducing maximum operational 

speeds in some segments to 90 mph, eliminating the need for a parallel track, and significantly 

reducing capital investments. Route 11 does not provide such opportunities for cost reduction 

since the segments designated for 110 mph operations are a complete reconstruction of 

abandoned rights of way requiring a fixed level of improvements, regardless of passenger rail 

operational speeds. In addition, from an environmental perspective, the social and community 

impacts associated with reconstructing a rail system through a corridor which has not seen rail 

operations for several decades would be substantial. 

Regarding the number of corridors brought forward for additional analysis, the Route 9 score of 

4.15 is considerably higher than the score of Route 11 which received a score of 3.51. The 

difference of 0.64 points on a five-point scale is significant. This difference, in combination with 

the discussion of maturity, flexibility in the amount of capital investment required, and 

environmental impacts suggests that Route 9 is the only prudent route to move forward at this 

time.

Additional analysis was conducted to assess the functional characteristics of Routes 9, 11, and 

11A to determine if the group of alternatives should be narrowed before proceeding into the 

environmental document. 

A higher level of capital investment is needed for Routes 11 and 11A than Route 9 ($1.36 billion 

and $1.49 billion versus $0.82 billion respectively) due to corridor condition and level of 

improvements necessary to accommodate moves between segments and achieve reasonable 

operating speeds.

Ridership is higher for Route 11A due to the additional stop provided in St. Paul (981,000 year 

2020 trips for Route 11A versus 938,000 and 834,000 trips for Routes 9 and 11 respectively). 

However, revenue is diminished for Route 11A ($26.86 million versus $27.66 million for Route 

9 and $26.34 million for Route 11) as the route configuration and overall travel times encourages 

shorter trips between Minneapolis and St. Paul and discourages longer trips throughout the 

remainder of the corridor.

The benefit-cost analysis found that only Route 9 yields a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0, with 

a ratio of 1.5 for the three percent discount rate and 1.03 for the seven percent discount rate. 

Routes 11 and 11A fail to meet the 1.0 ratio, scoring 0.98 and 0.9 respectively for the three 

percent discount rate and 0.65 and 0.6 respectively for the seven percent discount rate. Only 

route 9 achieves operating ratios greater than 1.0 in both 2025 and 2040 (1.02 and 1.14 

respectively). Routes 11 and 11A achieve only 0.82 and 0.80 operating ratios in 2025 and 0.92 
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 8 February 2013 

and 0.90 ratios in 2040. 

There was subsequent refinement to concept engineering (Level 3) which served to confirm the 

rationale for selection of Route 9 as the Preferred Alternative. 
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 9 February 2013 

 NLX LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS - TRACK SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONS
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 10 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 11 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment B- 12 February 2013 




APPENDIX C-1 

CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

LEVEL 1 SCREENING REPORT

December 31, 2009                      

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS

PASSENGER RAIL PROJECT

LEVEL 1 SCREENING ‐ FINAL REPORT  

Alternatives Analysis Of

Rail Lines within Intercity Rail Corridor

MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL, MN to DULUTH, MN

In Accordance with

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

RAIL CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PLANS

A Guidance Manual, Section II  

Prepared By

Quandel Consultants, LLC

For SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
REPORT CONTENTS

Level 1 Screening Summary

 Level 1 Screening Final Report

– Appendix A – Agenda: NLX Alternatives Analysis Level 1 Screening Workshop

– Appendix B – List of Participants

– Appendix C – Routes Recommended for Level 1 Screening, Step 3

– Appendix D – New Route Segment Analysis – Munger Trail

– Appendix E – Sensitivity Analysis

– Appendix F – Purpose and Need Statement

Alternatives Analysis Level 1 Screening

 Step 1 – Route Alternatives Identification

 Step 2 – Preliminary Analysis

 Step 3 – Detailed Analysis

– Speed Profiles and Route Travel Times

– Intermodal Stations

– Ridership Potential

– Cost of Improvements

   
LEVEL 1 SCREENING SUMMARY
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Report

Subject:     Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

Level 1 Screening Final Report

Prepared  For:     SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     December 29, 2009

Introduction

This report summarizes the evaluation process and the results of the Northern Lights Express Level 1

screening.  The Northern Lights Express will provide passenger rail service between the metropolitan

areas of Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth/Superior.    The Level 1 screening employs proprietary

software developed by Quandel Consultants, LLC to identify the alternative rail routes for further

evaluation in the Northern Lights Express Environmental Assessment (NLX Project).   

Background

In 2007, members of several regional rail authorities and local, county, and state government officials

from the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, joined together to form the NLX Alliance.  The Alliance

was formed to explore options for restoring high‐speed intercity rail service between Minneapolis/St

Paul, MN and Duluth, MN/Superior, WI.    The Alliance commissioned Transportation Economics &

Management Systems, Inc. (TEMS) to perform a feasibility study and prepare a business plan for

implementing this service.

The TEMS Feasibility Study, officially titled the ‘Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity

Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan’, investigated the

implementation of service along the 155‐mile Burlington Northern Santa Fe owned freight rail route

between downtown Minneapolis and downtown Duluth.    The TEMS study concluded that the

implementation of a passenger rail system within the BNSF right of way would enhance mobility in

the region, reduce auto congestion and emissions, and stimulate economic growth in towns along
2

the corridor.    It also concluded that intercity rail service would meet the need for a competitive

alternative to automotive travel with respect to travel time, pricing, and travel experience.    

Environmental Review

In 2009, the NLX Alliance retained SRF Consulting Group, Inc., in association with Quandel

Consultants, LLC and TEMS, to provide complete environmental review and documentation for NLX

service implementation.    The environmental documentation process ensures compliance with the

National Environmental Protection Act and National Historic Preservation Act needed to meet FRA

requirements for the startup of passenger rail service.  The initial phase of the environmental process

defines the purpose and need of the project.  The Purpose and Need of the NLX project has been

defined to offer passenger rail service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth/Superior that will:

 Meet Corridor Travel Demand

 Provide a Competitive Travel Alternative vs. Auto Travel

 Be Safe and Reliable  

 Provide Travel Amenities that provide Quality and Comfort

 Provide System Continuity

Environmental documentation process tasks also include alternatives analysis of existing or

abandoned rail routes between the metropolitan areas and performing conceptual engineering on

routes surviving the Level 1 screening.

The purpose of the Alternatives Analysis is to work through a systematic evaluation process that

leads to the identification of a preferred alternative(s) that meets the project Purpose and Need.   

This preferred alternative(s) is then more formally studied in an Environmental Assessment, or an

Environmental Impact Statement.   

LEVEL 1 SCREENING SUMMARY AND DOCUMENTATION

Level 1 screening is an initial screening of rail alternatives according to criteria defined in Section II of

the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Rail Corridor Transportation Plan.  The results of the Level

1 screening are a reduced set of viable rail alternatives that are subjected to a more detailed process

in Levels 2 and 3.   

Level 2 will be undertaken in the event that the Level 1 screening identifies another promising rail

alternative(s) in addition to the BNSF route described above.   The Level 2 screening is similar to the

process used in the “Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior – Restoration of Intercity passenger Rail Service

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan”.

Level 3 screening is a detailed alternative analysis evaluation of the rail alternatives surviving Levels 1

and 2 screening with other transportation modes such as intercity bus and the No Build alternative.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
3

Table 1 lists the screening steps used for Level 1 Screening of the NLX.

Table 1 – Summary of Level 1 Screening Steps

Screening Step Screening

Tasks Description and Results Documentation

Step 1

Alternative

Routes

Identification

Identification of all route alternatives

Result: Thirteen Potential Route

Alternatives Identified

Technical Memorandum 1

October 9, 2009

Step 2

Preliminary

Analysis of Rail

Routes

Preliminary Analysis of route

alternatives

Result: Five of Thirteen Route

Alternatives Survive Screening Step 2

Technical Memorandum 2

November 6, 2009

Step 3 Quantitative

Analysis  

Analysis of route alternatives surviving

Step 2, including speed profiles, travel

times, ridership, intermodal stations,

and capital costs

Result: analysis and documentation

developed for use in Level 1 Screening

Workshop

Technical Memorandum 3  

Technical Memorandum 4

Technical Memorandum 5

Technical Memorandum 6

November 6, 2009

Level 1

Screening

Workshop

NLX

Stakeholder

Workshop

Evaluation and scoring  of route

alternatives by stakeholders

Result: Quantitative route evaluations

Level 1 Screening Report

December 14, 2009

Level 1

Screening

Report  

Summary of

Alternatives

Analysis Level

1 Screening

Summary and Results of Screening

Process

Result: recommendation of route

alternative for next level of screening

Level 1 Screening Report

December 14, 2009

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
4

LEVEL 1 SCREENING WORKSHOP

Twenty‐five stakeholders participated in a Level 1 Screening workshop on November 23rd, 2009 at the

offices of SRF Consulting Group in Plymouth, MN.  The purpose of the workshop was to select the

one or more alternatives that would be subjected to the next level screening.  Prior to the meeting

Technical Memoranda 3, 4, 5, and 6, which detail the quantitative analysis performed in Step 3, were

distributed to the workshop participants.   The agenda for the workshop is attached as Appendix A

and the list of the participants is attached as Appendix B to this report.

Introduction

The workshop was facilitated by Charles Quandel of Quandel Consultants, LLC.  The workshop began

by discussing the reason for the workshop, and the need for the route alternatives analysis.    The

current draft purpose and need of the NLX project was stated, which is to:  

 Meet Corridor Travel Demand

 Provide a Competitive Travel Alternative vs. Auto

 Provide Safe and Reliable Rail Service

 Provide Travel Amenities that provide Quality and Comfort

 Provide System Connectivity

The stakeholders were asked if any of the needs should be modified, or if any additional needs

should be added.  No changes or additions were suggested.

Step 1 and Step 2 Screening

The group reviewed a map of the thirteen route alternatives that resulted from the Step 1 screening

process.   In Step 1, thirteen rail route alternatives between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth were

identified.  Rail route alternatives were comprised of various segments, which included existing tracks

currently owned by private freight railroads, and abandoned rail rights‐of‐way.    The entire Step 1

process and its results are described in Technical Memorandum 1.   

The Step 2 process was presented and discussed with the participants.  The entire Step 2 process and

its results are described in Technical Memorandum 2.   Step 2 is a preliminary route analysis of the

routes identified in Step 1, and screens those routes not suitable for passenger service, thus

removing them from the more detailed analysis in Step 3.    In Step 2, each of the thirteen route

alternatives were screened according to four criteria:

1. Route distance (and travel time) – distances were measured using mapping software, and used

as a proxy for travel times.  Travel times were calculated using the average estimated running

speeds of five proposed routes in the Midwest Regional Rail System.  The five MWRRS corridors

are proposed to run at maximum speeds of 110 mph, as is the NLX.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
5

2. Population and population centers – route corridor populations were compiled and used as an

estimate of potential ridership. Corridor populations were calculated using GIS software from

the year 2000, and included populations within a 20‐mile band of each route (10‐mile each

side), and within a 20‐mile radius of each of the terminal stations in Minneapolis and Duluth.

3. The presence of route defects – conditions that would make the construction or operation of a

passenger rail particularly costly or difficult were identified as route defects.  Any defects that

would effectively prohibit rail line construction or operation and could not be mitigated were

considered ‘untenable defects’ and eliminated a route from further screening.

4. Order of magnitude capital costs –In the early stages of a project, costs to plan, design, and

construct rail transportation infrastructure are difficult to estimate, since project features and

site conditions are not well understood.  In this case, ‘Order of Magnitude’ capital costs were

employed based on costs in previous similar projects or historical unit costs.    Order of

magnitude capital costs were estimated based on the existing track and freight traffic

conditions.

Based on the analysis, each route was assessed as either ‘comparable’ or ‘unfavorable’ with respect

to each of the criteria.  The comparable/unfavorable assessments were tallied for each route, and a

recommendation was made that five routes be evaluated further in Level 3 screening.   A map of the

routes recommended for Level 3 screening is shown in Appendix C.

The workshop participants reviewed a map showing the five remaining routes:  Routes 8, 9, 10, 11,

and 12.  For ease of discussion during the workshop, the routes were given the names shown in Table

2.    Though these names correspond with the route’s primary right‐of‐way owner(s), names were

used only for reference purposes at the meeting.

Table 2

Route Names Used in Level 1 Screening Workshop

Route Route Name

8 BNSF/Munger

9 BNSF

10 St. Croix Valley/Munger

11 St. Croix Valley/BNSF

12 Gandy Dancer

Step 3 Analysis

Step 3 analysis provides more detailed route information that is used to evaluate the five remaining

route alternatives, and select one or more routes that will advance to the next level of screening in

Level 2 or Level 3.   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
6

Slides of the Step 3 analysis were presented to the participants.   Copies of memorandum detailing

the analysis were also distributed and discussed.    Step 3 analysis presents information on the

following:

 Speed Profiles and Route Travel Times ‐ Travel times and speed profiles were developed using

a spreadsheet‐based train performance calculator.   Data input into the TPC includes track

curvature, number of tracks, grades, acceleration and deceleration speeds, using information

obtained from railroad track charts and typical modern passenger train performance

characteristics.    Graphs depicting route speed profiles and travel times, freight density,

curvature, and the number of tracks on each route are also included as part of this analysis.  

Speed profile and travel time analysis are presented in Technical Memorandum 3.

 Intermodal Stations – the locations of existing and potential intermodal stations along each

route.  Intermodal stations are discussed in Technical Memorandum 4.

 Ridership Potential – route populations were calculated using GIS software from the year

2000, and included populations within a 20‐mile band of each route, and within a 20‐mile

radius of each of the terminal stations in Minneapolis and Duluth.    Ridership potential is

presented in Technical Memorandum 5.

 Cost of Improvements – cost estimates were developed based on unit costs used in the

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.    Costs were estimated specifically for each route using

existing track conditions, track geometry, and bridge and crossing data.  The estimated cost

of Improvements is presented in Technical Memorandum 6.

The information presented in Step 3 was used as the basis for developing route evaluation criteria.  

The participants score the routes with respect to each evaluation criteria, and then scores are totaled

to select the best route alternative(s).  

The workshop participants discussed and debated which criteria should be used, and ultimately

decided on the following criteria for evaluating the five route alternatives:

 Travel time – the estimated route travel time between end points, which included time for

one intermediate station stop.  Travel times and speed profiles were available from the Step

3 analysis presented in Technical Memorandum 3.

 Proximity to Markets (Ridership) – maps and tables depicting route population information is

presented Technical Memorandum 5.

 Conflicts with Freight or Future Rail Purposes – existing freight traffic data is provided

Technical Memorandum 3.

 Conflicts with Existing Ownership – this is the potential for future conflicts with existing right‐

of‐way owners  

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
7

 System Connectivity – system connectivity refers to intermodal connections such as Amtrak,

bus, commuter rail, Light Rail Transit, air, and intra‐state connectivity (i.e. connections to

Rochester, Eau Claire, Mankato)

 Capital Costs – Estimated cost of improvement are provided in Technical Memorandum 6.

 Political/Public Support ‐ the perceived level of political/public support, either for or against,

that a route has or would have should it be selected.

The photograph below shows one wall of information containing travel times, speed profiles, location

of multiple tracks, freight capacity information, and maps that were utilized by the workshop

participant in evaluating and scoring the 5 alternative rail routes .

                                     

To facilitate route scoring, the twenty‐five participants were divided into five teams.    Each team

developed a weighting factor for each of the seven criteria.   The weighting scale ranges from 1 to 10,

with higher weighting factors indicating criteria of higher importance.    Weighting factors were

averaged across all teams, and were entered into a scoring matrix.  The scoring matrix showing route

criteria and criteria weights is shown in Table 3.

   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
8

   Criteria Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12

Evaluation Criteria Weight BNSF/ BNSF St. Croix Valley St. Croix Valley Gandy

      Munger     Munger BNSF Dancer

Travel time 9                              

Proximity to Markets /

Ridership 9                              

Conflict w/Freight,

Future Rail Use 5.4                              

Conflict w/Existing

Ownership 7.6                              

System Connectivity 6.6                              

Capital Cost 8.8                              

Political and Public

Support 6.4                              

Totals                                 

Weighted Average                                 

Table 3

Route Alternatives Criteria Weight

Pre‐Scoring Discussion

1. State or County Owned Recreational Trails

The workshop participants discussed whether any routes located on state recreational trails

possess legal rights or clauses that make them more or less favorable for passenger rail service.  

This information helped to score the route criteria Conflicts with Existing Ownership.  Three route

alternatives have route segments located on public recreational trails.  Routes 8 and 10 are on a

segment of the Willard Munger State Trail in Minnesota; Route 12 is located on the Gandy Dancer

Trail in Wisconsin.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
9

WisDOT representatives stated that some segments of Route 13 are publicly held in fee title by

the State of Wisconsin with rail banking rights, while other segments on Route 13 are privately

held.    Some stakeholders suggested that Route 12 may be similarly owned.    The group did not

have any relevant information regarding the legal status of the state‐owned Willard Munger State

Trail in Minnesota.

The environmental and legal issues involved with the potential future rail usage on a publicly

managed recreational trail can be complex.  The federal government and some states, including

Minnesota and Wisconsin, have rail banking programs.  Rail banking preserves railroad rights‐of‐

way for possible future rail use after a rail line has been deactivated.  In the interim, the rights‐of‐

way are often converted to trails for recreational use.  Thus there are primarily three types of trail

ownership:

1. Fee title publicly held

2. Fee title publicly held, rail banked

3. Fee title privately held

According to information obtained from WisDOT and the WisDOT website, the Gandy Dancer State

Trail, which occupies a large segment of Route 12, is publicly held in fee title, and does not belong

to a state or federal rail bank program.    The Minnesota DOT website also publishes a list of

Minnesota state rail banked corridors.    Neither the Munger Trail nor the Soo Line Trail state

recreational trails, both of which occupy segments of Routes 8 and 10, are listed as state rail

banked corridors on the Minnesota DOT website.

Since this information does not favorably support rail service on either Routes 8, 10, or 12, it would

not have improved the overall scores had it been known by the participants at the time of the

Workshop.  As described below, Routes 8, 10, and 12 received the lowest three of the five scores in

the evaluation.

Route Scoring and Results

The teams comparatively scored each route on a scale from 1 to 5 against each criterion.    Scores

were characterized as: 1=very poor, 2=poor, 3=good, 4=very good and 5=excellent.    Scores were

collected from each team, averaged, and tallied in the scoring matrix.

Total scores were then tallied for each of the five routes.  The scoring results are shown in Table 4.  

Route 9 was the highest scoring route with an average weighted score of 4.15, with Route 11 the

second highest with a score of 3.51.  Routes 8, 10, and 12 scored significantly lower.   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
10

Evaluation

Criteria

Criteria

Weight

Route 8

BNSF/Munger

Route 9  

BNSF

Route 10

St. Croix

Valley/Munger

Route 11

St. Croix

Valley/BNSF

Route 12

Gandy Dancer

Travel time 9 3.4 30.6 5 45.0 2.2 19.8 4 36.0 2 18.0

Proximity to

Markets /

Ridership

9 4 36.0 3.8 34.2 4 36.0 4 36.0 2.4 21.6

Conflict

w/Freight,

Future Rail Use

5.4 2.8 15.1 2.2 11.9 4.2 22.7 3.2 17.3 4.2 22.7

Conflict

w/Existing

Ownership

7.6 1.4 10.6 4.2 31.9 1.2 9.1 3.2 24.3 1.4 10.6

System

Connectivity 6.6 4 26.4 3.8 25.1 3.2 21.1 3.2 21.1 2 13.2

Capital Cost 8.8 2.4 21.1 5 44.0 1.2 10.6 3 26.4 1.2 10.6

Political and

Public Support 6.4 1.8 11.5 4.2 26.9 1.8 11.5 3.8 24.3 1.4 9.0

Total      151.4 219.0 130.8 185.4     105.6

Weighted

Average       2.87     4.15     2.48     3.51     2.00

Table 4

Final Route Alternatives Scoring Matrix

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
11

The participants agreed that Routes 8, 10, and 12 did not score high enough to warrant further

consideration.   One participant questioned whether either Route 8 or Route 10 would be scored

higher if these routes continued along the Munger Trail into Duluth.  It was agreed that, although the

newly identified route segment would not likely increase the score such that either Routes 8 or 10

were one of the two highest scoring routes, this new segment should be analyzed in order to

thoroughly evaluate all alternatives.  This analysis is documented in Appendix D.

Since routes 8, 10, and 12 were no longer to be considered, the participants were asked if they were

satisfied with the scoring results of routes 9 and 11, and if not satisfied what changes or

considerations should be made.  The participants discussed issues related to the scoring of routes 9

and 11.    Specifically, the participants focused on the scoring for two of the criteria: System

Connectivity and Proximity to Markets (Ridership).   These two criteria were further subjected to a

sensitivity analysis.

Sensitivity Analysis

a. Terminal Station Locations and criterion System Connectivity

As discussed in Technical Memoranda 2‐6, one assumption used throughout Level 1 screening

is that the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth/Superior metro areas are each considered one

location that will have one terminal station.    These station locations have not yet been

determined.    However, specific terminal locations were chosen so that analysis could be

performed in Steps 2 and 3 of Level 1 Analysis.    For example, in order to calculate route

distances, an end point must be selected at each end of the corridor.   The terminal locations

used in the analysis were the Minneapolis Downtown Intermodal Station and the Duluth Union

Depot.

Some workshop participants stated that the scoring process was complicated by the fact that

the locations of terminal stations within the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth/Superior regions

were not to be considered during route scoring, despite the fact that terminal stations were

previously identified for analysis purposes in Step 2 and Step 3 analysis.  Some participants also

suggested that the location of terminal stations within the metropolitan regions needed to be

considered for proper scoring and comparison.   

One argument presented during the workshop discussion was that if specific terminal locations

in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region were not to be considered, the scores for System

Connectivity should be similar for Routes 9 and 11.  This is because, as described in Technical

Memorandum 3, most of the potential for intermodal system connectivity is within the

Minneapolis/St. Paul region.   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
12

To allow for possible inconsistencies in scoring, a sensitivity analysis was performed to see

what impact the inconsistencies can have.  Under each of these scenarios, System Connectivity

scores are adjusted by doing the following:

1) increase all System Connectivity scores up to the highest score received

2) decrease all System Connectivity scores down to the lowest score received

3) give a score of 5 to the second‐highest scoring route (Route 11)

The results of the sensitivity analysis scoring are shown in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix E.   

The scores show that, even when allowances are made to account for possible inconsistencies

in scoring System Connectivity, under each scenario Route 9’s total score is higher than Route

11.

b. Proximity to Markets

The participants discussed the effect the issue of ‘Terminal Station Locations and criterion

System Connectivity’ (discussed above) has on the scoring of criteria Proximity to Markets.    

Each team was asked to discuss within their team whether considering the location at either

the Minneapolis Downtown Intermodal Station or at St Paul Depot would alter their previous

scoring of this criterion.  Each team stated that they would not alter their original score.  As a

result, the score for the criteria Proximity to Markets (Ridership) was accepted as final.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The workshop participants scored each of the five routes based on all the route evidence presented

in Step 3, and have given Route 9 the highest route score.  Route 9’s score of 4.15 is considerably

higher than the score of the second‐highest score of 3.51 received by Route 11.  The difference of .64

points on a five‐point scale is significant. This difference is not materially impacted by the sensitivity

analysis.  Therefore Route 9 is recommended for the next step of screening in Level 3 since Level 2 is

needed only when more than one alternative route survives Level 1 screening.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Appendix A

Agenda:  NLX Alternatives Analysis Level 1

Screening Workshop

November 23, 2009

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
AGENDA 

NLX ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LEVEL 1 SCREENING WORKSHOP 

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 

SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 

One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 

Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 

Purpose of Level 1 Screening Task: 

The purpose of this task is to undertake a preliminary analysis of rail routes within the corridor 

between Minneapolis/St Paul and Duluth/Superior as called for in the FRA Railroad Corridor 

Transportation Plans (RCTP); A Guidance Manual, Section II. 

Purpose of Workshop: 

To select one or more routes between the greater metropolitan area of Minneapolis/St Paul and 

Duluth/Superior on which a high speed passenger rail system will be constructed This workshop will not 

select the terminal within the Minneapolis/St Paul and Duluth/Superior or the routes within that will be 

used to serve the terminals. 

1. Introduction 

2. Description of Workshop Process 

3. Project Description 

4. Identification of Key Stakeholders 

5. Review of Purpose and Needs 

6. Speculation of Additional Needs and Desires of Project 

7. Presentation of Route Alternatives (Level 1, Step 1 – Tech Memo #1) 

8. Presentation of Level 1, Step 2 Analysis Results (Tech Memo #2) 

9. Presentation of Step 3 Analysis of Routes Surviving Step 2 

9.1 Speed Profiles and Route Travel Times (Tech Memo #3) 

9.2 Intermodal Stations (Tech Memo #4) 

9.3 Ridership Potential (Tech Memo #5) 

9.4 Cost of Improvements (Tech Memo #6) 

10. Evaluation Phase 

10.1 Establish criteria for evaluation of alternatives 

10.2 Weight Criteria 

10.3 Evaluate Routes 

10.4 Review Evaluation Results 

11. Next Steps 

11.1 Documentation of Evaluation Process 

11.2 Preparation of Summary Alternatives Analysis Report 

11.3 Meeting with the Federal Railroad Administration 

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Appendix B

List of Participants

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Northern Lights Express Environmental Assessment: “Down Select” Workshop

10:00 AM– 3:00 PM, Tuesday, November 23, 2009

SRF Consulting Group offices, 1 Carlson Pkwy, Plymouth

Participant Name

Bob Manzoline

Jeanne Witzig,

Dan Krom

Praveena Pidaparthi

Dave Christianson

Jennie Ross

Frank Pafko

Tom Beekman

Jeff Abboud

Jon Olson

Kate Garwood

Joe Gladke

Mike Rogers

John Onargo

Ann Pung‐Terwedo

Ron Chicka

Beth Bartz

Chuck Gonderinger

Kelcie Young

Charlie Quandel

Jim Jennings

Rich Ojard

      Dave Moore    

Affiliation

NLX Alliance

Kimley Horn

Mn/DOT

Mn/DOT

Mn/DOT

Mn/DOT

Mn/DOT

WisDOT

WisDOT

Anoka County

Anoka County

Hennepin County

Ramsey County

St. Louis County

Washington County

Duluth‐Superior MIC

SRF

SRF

SRF

Quandel Consultants

Quandel Consultants

Krech & Ojard

Krech & Ojard

    

   

          

        
Appendix C

Routes Recommended for Level 1 Screening,

Step 3

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Rapids Hugo

Cambridge

North Branch

Hinckley Brook Park

Staples Brainerd

Moose Lake

Duluth

Min. Wisc.

Superior

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

St. Croix Falls

8 10

Bald Eagle

Withrow

Figure 1

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives Recommended

for Level 1, Step 3 Screening

0 
Appendix D

New Route Segment Analysis

Munger Trail

   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
A newly identified route segment is the Munger State Trail between Moose Lake, MN and Duluth,

MN.  This new route segment creates two new route alternatives, Routes 8A and 10A.  As shown in

the table below, these new routes share 72% of their total length in common with Routes 8 and 10. 

North of Moose Lake, MN Routes 8 and 10 continue into Duluth, MN via Superior, WI along the Soo

Line Trail.   

Comparison of Routes 8 and 10 Including New Munger Trail Segment

Route 8

Route 8A

(Route 8 using new

Munger Trail segment)

10

Route 10A

(Route 10 using new

Munger Trail segment)

Route Distance (miles) 161.7 152.2 162.4 152.9

Common Distance 109.7 109.7 110.4 110.4

Common Distance as

Percentage of Route

Total

68% 72% 68% 72%

The segments that distinguish Routes 8 and 10 from Route 8A and 10A are both state‐owned

recreational trails, with the new Munger Trail segment into Duluth on Routes 8A and 10A being 9.5

miles shorter than the Soo Line Trail into Duluth on Routes 8 and 10.   

Since the new Munger Trail segment is shorter than the Soo Line Trail segment, one presumption is

that Routes 8A and 10A could have shorter travel times than Routes 8 and 10.  Other than route

distance, the routes are similar.  It is reasonable to expect that scores for Routes 8A and 10A would

be similar to the scores for Routes 8 and 10 for all criteria other than travel time.   

A hypothetical scoring scenario is created to assess the impacts of the new routes.     Using a

conservative approach to assess the scoring impact, Routes 8A and 10A are given the highest score

of 5 for the criteria Travel Time.  As Figure 3 shows, the higher travel time scores do not change the

rankings of the route alternatives.  Routes 9 and 11 still have the highest scores.  The hypothetical

scoring is shown in the table below.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
New Segment Analysis

Munger Trail from Moose Lake, MN to Duluth, MN

Hypothetical Scoring of Routes 8A and 10A

Route 8 Route 8A Route 9 Route 10 Route 10A 

Criteria Criteria Weight Raw Score Weighted Score Raw Score Weighted Score Raw Score Weighted Score Raw Score Weighted Score Raw Score Weighted Score R

Sc

Travel Time 9 3.4 30.6 5 45 5 45 2.2 19.8 5 45 Proximity toMarkets(Population)

9 4 36 4 36 3.8 34.2 4 36 4 36 

Conflicts w

future rail

purposes

5.4 2.8 15.12 2.8 15.12 2.2 11.88 4.2 22.68 4.2 22.68 3

Conflict w

ExistingOwnership

7.6 1.4 10.64 1.4 10.64 4.2 31.92 1.2 9.12 1.2 9.12 3

SystemConnectivity 6.6 4 26.4 4 26.4 3.8 25.08 3.2 21.12 3.2 21.12 3Capital Costs 8.8 2.4 21.12 2.4 21.12 5 44 1.2 10.56 1.2 10.56 Political/PublicSupport 6.4 1.8 11.52 1.8 11.52 4.2 26.88 1.8 11.52 1.8 11.52 3Total Score 151.40 165.80 218.96 130.80 156.00 Weighted Average Score 2.87 3.14 4.15 2.48 2.95 

Quandel Consultants, LLC 
Appendix E

Sensitivity Analysis

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
   Route 9 Route 11

Criteria Criteria Weight Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Travel Time 9 5 45 4 36

Proximity to

Markets

(Population)

9 3.8 34.2 4 36

Conflicts w

future rail

purposes

5.4 2.2 11.88 3.2 17.28

Conflict w

Existing

Ownership

7.6 4.2 31.92 3.2 24.32

System

Connectivity 6.6 4 26.4 4 26.4

Capital Costs 8.8 5 44 3 26.4

Political/Public

Support 6.4 4.2 26.88 3.8 24.32

Total Score 220.28 190.72

Weighted Average Score 4.17 3.61

Original Difference vs. Highest

Score ‐  ‐0.63

New Difference vs. Highest Score  ‐  ‐0.56

Exhibit 1

Sensitivity Analysis Scoring of Routes 9 and 11

Increase System Connectivity Score to Highest Score

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
   Route 9 Route 11

Criteria Criteria Weight Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Travel Time 9 5 45 4 36

Proximity to

Markets

(Population)

9 3.8 34.2 4 36

Conflicts w

future rail

purposes

5.4 2.2 11.88 3.2 17.28

Conflict w

Existing

Ownership

7.6 4.2 31.92 3.2 24.32

System

Connectivity 6.6 2 13.2 2 13.2

Capital Costs 8.8 5 44 3 26.4

Political/Public

Support 6.4 4.2 26.88 3.8 24.32

Total Score 207.08 177.52

Weighted Average Score 3.92 3.36

Original Difference vs. Highest

Score ‐  ‐0.63

New Difference vs. Highest Score ‐ ‐0.56

Exhibit 2

Sensitivity Analysis Scoring of Routes 9 and 11

Decrease System Connectivity Score to Lowest Score

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
   Route 9 Route 11

Criteria Criteria

Weight

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Raw

Score

Weighted

Score

Travel Time 9 5 45 4 36

Proximity to

Markets

(Population)

9 3.8 34.2 4 36

Conflicts w

future rail

purposes

5.4 2.2 11.88 3.2 17.28

Conflict w

Existing

Ownership

7.6 4.2 31.92 3.2 24.32

System

Connectivity 6.6 3.8 25.08 5 33

Capital Costs 8.8 5 44 3 26.4

Political/Public

Support 6.4 4.2 26.88 3.8 24.32

Total Score 218.96 197.32

Weighted Average Score 4.15 3.74

Original Difference vs. Highest

Score ‐  ‐0.63

New Difference vs. Highest Score  ‐  ‐0.41

Exhibit 3

Sensitivity Analysis Scoring of Routes 9 and 11

Give Score of 5 to Second‐Highest Scoring Route (Route 11)

   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Appendix F

Purpose and Need Statement

   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Purpose and Need Statement

Sept. 25, 2009

1.0 Proposed Action

The Northern Lights Express Passenger Rail Alliance, in cooperation with the Federal Railway

Administration (FRA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, proposes to construct and

operate a high speed passenger rail service between Minneapolis/ St. Paul and Duluth, Minnesota.  FRA

will serve as the lead federal agency for the project.   

The existing transportation system in this corridor include highway (auto and bus) and air modes.  

Limited passenger rail service had previous served this corridor, but was discontinued in 1985.

2.0 Project Purpose

The purpose of the Northern Lights Express project and the proposed action is provide a means to meet

future transportation needs through the creation of a passenger rail service between Minneapolis/St.

Paul and Duluth.    The proposed action offers an opportunity to provide reliable and competitive

passenger rail service as a viable alternative to vehicular travel by:

 Decreasing travel times;

 Providing safe and reliable transit service; and  

 Providing amenities to improve passenger travel quality and comfort.

In addition, the project can provide:

 An alternative to vehicular travel

 Improved overall system continuity in the regional transportation network (wording from

statewide transportation plan)

 Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development – land use patterns that encourage more

efficient development of land in combination with more efficient use of transportation facilities;

while

 Provide an impetus for station‐area joint development, downtown redevelopment and conomic

development for growth in travel and tourism in all the communities along the reroute,

contributing to the viability and vitality of the region.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LEVEL 1 SCREENING
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

Technical Memorandum

Subject:     Minnesota Northern Lights Express(NLX) Project

Technical Memorandum 1 – Alternative Routes Depiction

PreparedFor:    SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     October 9, 2009

Summary

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings from the development of the rail route

alternatives that could potentially serve the Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior NLX corridor.    The

development of these route alternatives is Step 1 of the Level 1 screening of the project Alternatives

Analysis, and is consistent with the guidelines for implementing high‐speed intercity rail service set

forth in Section II of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Rail Corridor Transportation Plan.   

As shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, thirteen different route alternatives have been identified.  These

routes will next undergo a preliminary analysis in Step 2 of Level 1 screening.  Step 2 will screen each

route on the basis of its population centers served, route distance, estimated travel time, order of

magnitude capital cost, and the presence of untenable defects.    Based on the results of Step 2,

routes that are not suitable for passenger rail service, and are not consistent with the defined

purpose and need of the NLX Corridor project, will not be considered for further study.

Background

In 2007, members of several regional rail authorities and local, county, and state government

officials from the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, joined together to form the NLX Alliance.  The

Alliance was formed to explore options for restoring high‐speed intercity rail service between

Minneapolis, MN and Duluth, MN/Superior, WI.  That same year the Alliance hired Transportation

Economics & Management Systems, Inc. (TEMS) to perform a feasibility study for implementing this

service.
The TEMS Feasibility Study, officially titled the ‘Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan’, investigated the 

implementation of service along the 155-mile Burlington Northern Santa Fe owned single track 

corridor between downtown Minneapolis and downtown Duluth, also known as the BNSF Hinckley 

subdivision. The Hinckley subdivision route has many practical advantages, including a direct route 

between the cities and well-maintained track, and thus was a logical choice for consideration in the 

study. The study concluded that a passenger rail system would enhance mobility in the region, 

reduce auto congestion and emissions, and stimulate economic growth in towns along the corridor.

It also concluded that intercity rail service would meet the need for a competitive alternative to 

automotive travel with respect to travel time, pricing, and travel experience. 

Environmental Review and Alternatives Analysis

In 2009, the NLX Alliance retained SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to provide complete environmental 

review and documentation for NLX service implementation. The environmental documentation 

process will ensure compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and several others needed to meet FRA requirements for the startup of passenger 

rail service. This environmental documentation process also includes tasks such as defining the 

project purpose and need, considering alternatives routes, and performing conceptual engineering. 

The draft Purpose and Need of the NLX project is to offer a viable alternative to vehicular travel by 

providing reliable and competitive passenger rail service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth 

that offers:

• Corridor travel times competitive with automobile travel 

• Safe and reliable rail service

• Amenities that improve passenger travel quality and comfort

The purpose of the Alternatives Analysis is to work through a systematic evaluation process that 

leads to the identification of a preferred alternative that meets the project Purpose and Need. This 

preferred alternative is then more formally studied in an Environmental Assessment, or an 

Environmental Impact Statement. The Alternative Analysis first identifies alternative rail routes that 

could serve the NLX corridor, and then evaluates these routes for their ability to support the 

purpose and need of the NLX project. The complete set of alternatives includes the new routes 

indentified in this memorandum, the BNSF Hinckley Subdivision route, and the no-action/no build 

alternative.

Development of Route Alternatives

The route alternatives were developed by first identifying track ‘segments’. For the purpose of this 

memorandum, a segment is a track defined by logical end points, junctions, or population centers. 

The track segments include existing tracks currently owned by private freight railroads, or 

abandoned rail rights-of-way with or without existing track. 

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Information was gathered using Railway Station Productions ‘North American Railroad Map’ 

software, which provides current and historic railroad and rail map information compiled from the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics National Rail Network, the Federal Railroad Administration, the 

US Geological Survey, and the North American Transportation Atlas. The TEMS Feasibility Study was 

also used as a reference. Information was then verified using internet searches. These project 

segments are shown and described in Figure 1 and Table 1, respectively. These segments were then 

analyzed to develop all possible route alternatives for the project. These route alternatives are 

described in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2. All routes previously identified for inclusion in this

study, including the St. Croix Valley, Canadian Pacific (Soo Line), Canadian National (WC), and the 

BNSF Hinckley Subdivision, are included in Table 2.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
TABLE 1

Northern Lights Express - Track Segment Descriptions

Track 

Segment

Approximate 

Limits Owner(s)

No. of 

Existing 

Track(s) Note

A Bald Eagle, MN to 

Ambridge, WI

Canadian National; 

Canadian Pacific; 

Abandoned

1/None

Canadian Pacific owned (1 existing track) 

from Bald Eagle to Withrow; Canadian 

National owned (1 existing track) from 

Withrow, MN to New Richmond, WI. 

Abandoned C&NW line north of New 

Richmond, WI. Approximately 6 of the 130+ 

miles on the abandoned segment owned by 

the Wisconsin Great Northern RR

B Bald Eagle, MN to 

Boylston, WI

Canadian National; 

Canadian Pacific; 

Abandoned

1/None

Canadian Pacific owned (1 existing track) 

from Bald Eagle to Withrow, WI. Canadian 

National owned (1 existing track) from 

Withrow, MN to Dresser, WI. Abandoned 

north of Dresser.

C Bald Eagle, MN to 

Hinckley, MN

Minnesota 

Commercial; 

St. Croix Valley; 

Abandoned

1/None

Existing ‘Rush Line’ corridor. 1 existing track 

owned by Minnesota Commercial between 

Bald Eagle and Hugo; no existing track 

between Hugo and North Branch, MN; 1 

existing track owned by St. Croix Valley 

north of North Branch, MN

D Hinckley, MN to 

Boylston, WI BNSF 1 

Segment was studied in the 2007 report 

‘Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and 

Business Plan’ by TEMS Inc.

E Coon Creek, MN to 

Brook Park, MN BNSF 1 

Segment was studied in the 2007 report 

‘Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and 

Business Plan’ by TEMS Inc.

F Brook Park, MN to 

Hinckley, MN BNSF 1 

Segment was studied in the 2007 report 

‘Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and 

Business Plan’ by TEMS Inc.

G Hinckley, MN to 

Moose Lake, MN Abandoned None Formerly owned by Northern Pacific 

Railroad; now the Willard Munger Trail

H Minneapolis, MN to 

St. Cloud, MN BNSF 2 

Minneapolis-Coon Creek subsegment was 

studied in the 2007 report ‘MinneapolisDuluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive 

Feasibility Study and Business Plan’ by TEMS 

Inc.

I Elk River, MN to 

Milaca, MN Abandoned None Formerly owned by Great Northern Railroad

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Track 

Segment

Approximate 

Limits Owner(s)

No. of 

Existing 

Track(s) Note

J St. Cloud, MN to 

Milaca, MN Abandoned None Formerly owned by Soo Line

K Royalton, MN - 

Moose Lake, MN Abandoned None Formerly owned by Soo Line

L Little Falls, MN to 

Brainerd, MN BNSF/Abandoned 1/None

1 existing track owned by BNSF between 

Little Falls and Camp Ripley; no existing track 

between Camp Ripley, MN and Brainerd, 

MN 

M Brainerd, MN to 

Boylston, WI BNSF 1 

N Moose Lake, MN to 

Boylston, WI Abandoned None Formerly owned by Soo Line

O Little Falls, MN to 

Staples, MN BNSF 2 

P Staples, MN to 

Brainerd, MN BNSF 1 

Q Milaca, MN to 

Brook Park, MN

St. Croix Valley/ 

Abandoned 1/None

1 existing track owned by St. Croix Valley 

between Mora, MN and Brook Park, MN; no 

existing track between Milaca, MN and 

Mora, MN

R St. Cloud, MN to 

Royalton, MN BNSF 2 

S Royalton, MN to 

Little Falls, MN BNSF 2 

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
TABLE 2

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives

Route 

No.

Track 

Segments Cities Served Track Owner(s)

1 H-R-S-O-P-M 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

St. Cloud, MN

Little Falls, MN

Staples, MN

Brainerd, MN

Aitkin, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth,MN

BNSF

2 H-R-S-L-M 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

St. Cloud, MN

Little Falls, MN

Brainerd, MN

Aitkin, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; Abandoned

3 H-R-K-N 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

St. Cloud, MN

Genola, MN

Moose Lake, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; Abandoned

4 H-J-Q-F-G-N 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

St. Cloud, MN

Hinckley, MN

Moose Lake, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; St. Croix 

Valley; Abandoned

5 H-J-Q-F-D 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

St. Cloud, MN

Hinckley, MN 

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; St. Croix 

Valley; Abandoned

6 H-I-Q-F-G-N 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Elk River, MN

Milaca, MN

Hinckley, MN

Moose Lake, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; St. Croix 

Valley; Abandoned

7 H-I-Q-F-D 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Elk River, MN

Milaca, MN

Hinckley, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; St. Croix 

Valley; Abandoned

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Route 

No.

Track 

Segments Cities Served Track Owner(s)

8 E-F-G-N 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Cambridge, MN

Hinckley, MN

Moose Lake, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF; Abandoned

9 E-F-D 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Cambridge, MN

Hinckley, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

BNSF

10 C-G-N 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Rush City, MN

Hinckley, MN

Moose Lake, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

Minnesota 

Commercial; St. Croix 

Valley; Abandoned

11 C-D 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Rush City, MN

Hinckley, MN

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

Minnesota 

Commercial; St. Croix

Valley; BNSF; 

Abandoned

12 B 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

Dresser, WI

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

Canadian National; 

Canadian Pacific; 

Abandoned

13 A 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN

New Richmond, MN

Turtle Lake, WI

Spooner, WI

Superior, WI

Duluth, MN

Canadian Pacific; 

Canadian National; 

Wisconsin Great –

Northern;

Abandoned 

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

A

B

C

E

H

I

J

F

D

G

K

L

M

Bald Eagle

Ambrid

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Creek Hugo Withrow New Richmond

Elk River

Princeton North Branch

Dresser Turtle Lake

S

Hinckley

Mora

Little Falls Brook Park

Camp Ripley

Genola

Staples Brainerd

Carlton

Moose Lake

Duluth

Foxboro

Boylston

N

Min. Wisc.

P

O

S

R

Q

Aitkin

Royalton

Cambridge Rush City

Milaca

Superio

±

Figure 1

Northern Lights Express Track Segments
! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bald Eagle

Amb

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Creek Hugo Withrow New Richmond

Elk River

Princeton North Branch

Dresser Turtle Lake

Hinckley

Mora

Little Falls Brook Park

Camp Ripley

Genola

Staples Brainerd

Carlton

Moose Lake

Duluth

Foxboro

Boylsto

Min. Wisc.

Aitkin

Royalton

Cambridge Rush City

Milaca

8 & 9

10 & 11

6 & 7

4 & 5

4,6,8,10

5,7,9,11

12

3

3

1

1 & 2

1 2

1‐9

10‐13

Supe

1,2,3,4,5

4,5,6,7

±

Figure 2

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives

NOTE: Numbers denote route alternatives
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Memorandum

Subject:     Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

Technical Memorandum 2 ‐ Preliminary Analysis

Prepared  For:     SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     November 20, 2009

Purpose of Technical Memorandum

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings from Step 2 of the Level 1 screening of the route

alternatives that have been identified for the Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Northern Lights Express (NLX)

corridor.  These route alternatives were screened for basic suitability for high‐speed passenger rail service

and for the ability of each route to meet the purpose and need of the NLX project.    

Background and Assumptions

The draft Purpose and Need of the NLX project is to provide passenger rail service between

Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth that offers:

 Corridor travel times competitive with automobile travel  

 Safe and reliable rail service

 Amenities that improve passenger travel quality and comfort  

 System continuity with the existing and planned transportation network

Step 2 uses several assumptions as the basis for route screening.  These assumptions are taken from the

2007 TEMS Inc. report ‘Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service’ (the

‘TEMS Feasibility Study’), and include:

 Maximum operating speeds of 110 mph

 8 round‐trips per day

 A southern terminal station at the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station

 A northern terminal station at the Duluth Union Depot

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
2

The TEMS Feasibility Study also describes terminal stations and feasible routes within the Minneapolis/St.

Paul and Duluth/Superior regions.  The terminals described in the Feasibility Study are used in this report

for the preliminary analysis.  In Minneapolis/St. Paul, the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station near

Target Field is the southern terminus.  All routes initially proceed northeast out of the Intermodal Station

to Minneapolis Junction, and then proceed north on the BNSF Midway Subdivision.   North of University

Avenue, the routes begin to diverge, with Routes 1‐9 proceeding north on the BNSF Hinckley subdivision,

and Routes 10‐13 proceeding north on the Canadian Pacific Withrow Subdivision.  In the Duluth area, all

routes use ‘Alternate 1’ as described in the Feasibility Study, entering Duluth via Superior, WI, and

terminating at the Duluth Union Depot.   A graphical depiction of the routes in the corridor is shown in

Figure 1.   

The route studied in the TEMS Feasibility Study is along the entire length of the BNSF Hinckley Subdivision,

and is the same route as Route 9 in this report.  Because Route 9 is the shortest and most direct route, and

because it was cited in the Feasibility Study, Route 9 is used as a baseline for comparison and evaluation of

the routes within the corridor.

Step 2 Process  

The screening process of identifying the preferred alternative for the Northern Lights Express project

builds upon the Technical Memorandum 1 ‘Alternative Routes Depiction’, dated October 9, 2009.    In

Technical Memorandum 1, Step 1 of the screening process identifies all the rail route alternatives that

could potentially serve the NLX passenger rail corridor.    Step 2 is a preliminary analysis of the route

alternatives that screens routes not suitable for passenger service, thus removing them from the more

detailed step 3 analysis.

Both Step 1 and Step 2 are parts of the Alternatives Analysis, a systematic evaluation process that leads to

the identification of a preferred alternative that meets the Purpose and Need of the NLX Project.   This

process of identifying the preferred alternative follows the guidelines for implementing high‐speed

intercity passenger rail service set forth in Section II of the FRA’s July 8, 2005 publication, “Rail Corridor

Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual”.

In Step 2, each of the route alternatives from Step 1 is assessed according to four simple criteria:

1. route distance (and travel time)

2. population and population centers

3. the presence of route defects

4. order of magnitude capital costs

Each proposed route is analyzed based on these criteria and compared to a pre‐selected baseline route.  

The route is then assessed as ‘comparable’ to other routes, or ‘unfavorable’ in comparison to other

routes.  The route criteria screenings are then summarized in Table 5.   This comparison and evaluation of

the routes enables the screening of the weakest alternatives in a systematic and well documented, but

cost effective manner.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
3

Screening Criteria 1: Route Distance (and Travel Time)

As the travel time between any two points is directly proportional to the distance between the points, the

route distances can be used to develop estimates of travel times for comparative purposes.  In order for a

route to serve the purpose and need of the project, an NLX route must be able to offer travel times

competitive with automobile travel between the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth, estimated at two hours

and 27 minutes by auto on I‐35 via direct route from downtown Minneapolis to downtown Duluth using

an average speed of 64 mph over the 156 mile trip distance.

Rail route distances were calculated from the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station to Duluth Union

Depot using “North American Railroad Map” software, published by Railway Station Productions, LLC.  The

travel time for each rail alternative route is calculated by dividing the route distance by 74 mph, which is

the average passenger speed of five 110 MPH corridors in the Midwest Regional Rail System.  The average

speed is defined as the total trip time, including station stops, divided by the total trip distance.   

Table 1 summarizes the distances and travel times for each of the route alternatives and compares the

route distance and travel time against the baseline.  The shortest routes 9, 11, and 12 are the most direct

routes from Minneapolis to Duluth, with distances just over 150 miles.   Route Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13

each has a route distance greater than 180 miles long, which results in travel times greater than both

automobile travel and Baseline Route 9.  In addition to having greater travel times, longer distance routes

will also have greater operating and maintenance costs than the more direct route alternatives.

Table 1 – Route Distances and Travel Times

Route

Route

Distance

(Miles)

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.  

Auto

(Miles)

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.

Baseline

(Miles)

Travel Time

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.  

Auto  

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.  

Baseline

Assessment ‐‐

Comparable

or

Unfavorable  

Auto 156.0 ‐  ‐  2 hrs 27 min ‐  ‐  ‐

Baseline

(Route 9) 151.2 ‐  ‐  2 hrs 2 min ‐  ‐  ‐

1 283.0 127.0   131.8   3 hrs 48 min 1 hr 21 min 1 hr 46 min Unfavorable

2 249.5 93.5   98.3   3 hrs 21 min 54 min 1 hr 19 min Unfavorable

3 224.0 68.0   72.8   3 hrs 0 min 33 min 58 min Unfavorable

4 217.2 61.2   66.0   2 hrs 55 min 28 min 53 min Unfavorable

5 206.7 50.7   55.5   2 hrs 46 min 19 min 44 min Unfavorable

6 186.5 30.5   35.3   2 hrs 30 min   3 min    28 min   Unfavorable

7 176.0 20.0   24.8   2 hrs 22 min (5 min) 20 min Unfavorable

8 161.7 5.7   10.5   2 hrs 10 min (17 min) 8 min Comparable

9 151.2 (4.8) ‐   2 hrs 2 min (25 min) ‐  ‐

10 162.4 6.4   11.2   2 hrs 11 min (16 min) 9 min Comparable

11 151.9 (4.1) 0.7   2 hrs 2 min (25 min) 0 min Comparable

12 151.2 (4.8) 0.0   2 hrs 2 min (25 min) 0 min Comparable

13 185.7 29.7   34.5   2 hrs 30 min 3 min 28 min Unfavorable

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
4

Screening Criteria 1 Conclusion: As shown in Table 1 above, Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13 each have a

travel time that is longer than both the travel time for auto travel and the Baseline Route 9 travel time.  

These routes would not offer competitive travel times between Minneapolis and Duluth due to longer

route distances, and are assessed as ‘unfavorable’ with respect to route distance and travel time.

Route 7 is approximately 25 miles longer than the baseline.  The estimated travel time for Route 7 is only 5

minutes shorter than estimated travel time for auto traffic, and is 20 minutes longer than the baseline.  

Because of this significant difference with the baseline, Route 7 is characterized as ‘unfavorable’ with

respect to route distance.

Screening Criteria 2: Population and Population Centers

A reasonable assumption for estimating ridership is that potential ridership in a passenger rail corridor is

directly related to the population within the service area.  Based on this assumption, route populations

were calculated for each route alternative using GIS software and US census data from the year 2000.  The

route populations for each route include cities and towns within a 20‐mile band of each route, and within

a 20 mile radius of each of the terminal stations in Minneapolis and Duluth.    Maps depicting these

population bands for each of these route alternatives are shown in Appendix A.

As noted in the background section of this technical memorandum, the terminals identified in the TEMS

Feasibility Report are used in this preliminary analysis.  Therefore, each of the route alternatives serves

both the Minneapolis/St. Paul and the Duluth/Superior regions.    Each of the routes can access either

Minneapolis or St. Paul directly or indirectly via the BNSF St Paul subdivision that runs between the two

cities.  In addition, the 20‐mile radius area surrounding the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal includes

the entire city limits of St. Paul.    For these reasons it is assumed that Minneapolis/St. Paul is one

population center served by one terminal.  The Superior/Duluth region is similar, where each of the routes

is able to serve both the adjacent cities of Superior, WI, and Duluth, MN.     This type of preliminary

analysis does not allow selection of a terminal or end point within the termini locations.

Table 2 shows a summary of the population screening results.  Route 1 serves roughly 2.86 million people,

and is the most populous route due mainly to the inclusion of the populations along the I‐94 corridor

toward St. Cloud, and in the greater Brainerd area.  The least populous route, Route No. 12 serves only

approximately 2.64 million people.    However, with a combined population of 2.53 million people, the

greater Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth regions contribute the majority of each route’s total population,

ranging from 88% of the total population of Route 1, up to almost 96% of the population of Route 12.    

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
5

Table 2 – Route Populations

Route Population Increase/(Decrease)

vs. Baseline

Assessment –

Comparable or

Unfavorable

Baseline

(Route 9) 2,642,111 ‐  ‐ 

1 2,860,394 218,283   Comparable

2 2,848,001 205,890   Comparable

3 2,810,262 168,151   Comparable

4 2,817,626 175,515   Comparable

5 2,812,083 169,972   Comparable

6 2,694,543 52,432   Comparable

7 2,686,167 44,056   Comparable

8 2,647,166 5,055   Comparable

9 2,642,111  ‐  ‐ 

10 2,653,959 11,848   Comparable

11 2,646,352 4,241   Comparable

12 2,641,686 (425) Comparable

13 2,662,720 20,609   Comparable

Screening Criteria 2 Conclusion:  Each of the route alternatives serves the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul and

Duluth/Superior regions, which have the highest populations of any of the towns or regions in the

corridor, and make up between 88% and 96% of the total population of each route.  Since the Purpose and

Need does not identify any other cities or towns as required stops in the Minneapolis‐Duluth corridor, no

routes can be eliminated from further consideration in Step 3, and no routes can be assessed as

‘unfavorable’ based on the estimated populations served.

Screening Criteria 3: Route Defects   

Site conditions that make the construction and operation of a passenger rail line particularly costly or

difficult may be considered route defects.  When these conditions effectively prohibit rail line construction

or operation and cannot be mitigated, these defects are considered ‘untenable defects’, and would

eliminate the route from further screening.

The defects that were found among the 13 identified routes are shown in Table 3.   On several routes,

private dwellings and/or commercial property would need to be purchased in order to implement rail

service where existing buildings are now present on abandoned track rights‐of‐way.  These are considered

route defects because of the additional purchasing costs, and the potential disruption to the existing

environment.  However, at this screening stage these defects are not considered untenable, and do not

preclude the routes from further analysis.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
6

Table 3 –Route Defects

Route

No. Defects  

Assessment –  

Comparable or

Unfavorable

1 None Identified Comparable

2 None Identified Comparable

3

Abandoned Track right‐of‐way has been sold or is under long‐term

lease in the town of Onamia, MN south of Main St. between Elm and

Rte 169; and in the town of Isle, MN, south of Isle St. between 3

rd Ave.

and 5th Ave.  Residential and/or commercial properties are located in

the abandoned track right‐of‐way at these locations.

Unfavorable

4

Abandoned track right‐of‐way has been sold or is under long‐term

lease in the town of Foley, MN.  Dozens of residential dwellings and

commercial properties are located in the abandoned track right‐of‐way

along Grand and Main Streets, between Norman Ave. and Holdridge St.

Unfavorable

5

Abandoned track right‐of‐way has been sold or is under long‐term

lease in the town of Foley, MN.  Dozens of residential dwellings and

commercial properties are located in the abandoned track right‐of‐way

along Grand and Main Streets, between Norman Ave. and Holdridge St.

Unfavorable

6

Abandoned track right‐of‐way has been sold or is under long‐term

lease in the town of Princeton, MN.  Dozens of residential dwellings are

located in the abandoned track right‐of‐way  west of  10th Avenue

between 3rd St. and Branch St.

Unfavorable

7

Abandoned track right‐of‐way has been sold or is under long‐term

lease in the town of Princeton, MN.  Dozens of residential dwellings are

located in the abandoned track right‐of‐way  west of  10th Avenue

between 3rd St. and Branch St.

Unfavorable

8 None Identified Comparable

9 None Identified ‐ 

10 None Identified Comparable

11 None Identified Comparable

12 None Identified Comparable

13

In several locations along this route, the abandoned track right‐of‐way

has been sold or is under long‐term lease.  Several residential dwellings

and businesses are now located in the track right‐of‐way in the

Wisconsin towns of Clear Lake (between Deposition Dr. and 5

th St),

Turtle Lake (South of Martin Ave between Elm St, and Willow St.), and

Cumberland (west of 1st Ave between 4th Ave and Marshall St.)

Unfavorable

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
7

Screening Criteria 3 Conclusion:  None of the thirteen routes has an untenable defect that would eliminate

it from further screening.  Routes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 each have unfavorable route defects in the form of

private property located on the track right‐of‐way.  

Screening Criteria 4: Order of Magnitude Capital Costs

Costs to plan, design and construct rail transportation infrastructure and rolling stock are considered

capital costs.  Such costs are estimated by engineers throughout the development of a project.  During the

early stages, when the project features are not well defined and site conditions are not well understood, it

is difficult to estimate the capital cost accurately.  However, engineers may employ “order of magnitude”

capital costs which are based on previous costs in similar projects, or historical unit costs, rates and

quantities for common construction elements that can be assembled to meet the requirements of the

project.   

Order of magnitude capital costs are estimated based on the existing track and freight traffic conditions

along each of the thirteen identified routes, and the upgrades needed to provide 110mph and 8 round‐

trips per day as described in the TEMS Feasibility Study.    The order of magnitude capital cost range is

estimated at between $5 million and $10 million per mile to construct a new track within an existing

railroad right of way to support high speed passenger service. Thus each of the routes shown in Table 4

below has a low‐end and high‐end estimate.  These costs do not reflect the cost of stations, maintenance

and layover facilities, property procurement, and rolling stock.  Routes 9 and 12, with the shortest route

distances, are shown to have the lowest estimated costs.

Screening Criteria 4 Conclusion: Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 are considered ‘unfavorable’ with respect

to order of magnitude capital cost.    These routes are estimated to be 16% greater or more than the

baseline estimate, which translates to an increase in capital costs of between $125 and $250 million more

than the baseline estimate.   Routes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have costs that are considered ‘comparable’, and

are all within 7% of the baseline estimate.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
8

Table 4 – Order of Magnitude Capital Costs

Order of Magnitude

Capital Cost Range

(millions)

Difference Vs. Baseline

Cost

(millions) Increase

Over

Baseline

Assessment –

Comparable

or

Route Unfavorable Low

Estimate

High

Estimate

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.

Baseline

Increase/

(Decrease)

vs.  

Baseline

Baseline

(Route 9) 756 1,512 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

1 1,415 2,830 659 1,318 87% Unfavorable

2 1,248 2,495 492 983 65% Unfavorable

3 1,120 2,240 364 728 48% Unfavorable

4 1,086 2,172 330 660 44% Unfavorable

5 1,034 2,067 278 555 37% Unfavorable

6 933 1,865 177 353 23% Unfavorable

7 880 1,760 124 248 16% Unfavorable

8 809 1,617 53 105 7% Comparable

9 756 1,512  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

10 812 1,624 56 112 7% Comparable

11 760 1,519 3 7 0% Comparable

12 756 1,512 0 0 0% Comparable

13 929 1,857 173 345 23% Unfavorable

   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
9

Summary of Findings

The summary of results from the four screening criteria is shown below in Table 5.  The key finding of this

preliminary analysis is that five of the thirteen identified routes – Route Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 – are

recommended for further analysis in Step 3 of Level 1 screening.    These routes are shown in Figure 2.   

Table 5 – Summary of Route Alternative Screening, Step 2

Screening Criteria

Route Distance and

Travel Time

Route

Population Route Defects

Order of

Magnitude

Capital Costs

Recommendation

1 Unfavorable Comparable Comparable Unfavorable Eliminate

2 Unfavorable   Comparable Comparable Unfavorable Eliminate

3 Unfavorable   Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

4 Unfavorable Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

5 Unfavorable Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

6 Unfavorable Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

7 Unfavorable Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

8 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Level 3 Screening

9 ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  Level 3 Screening

10 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Level 3 Screening

11 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Level 3 Screening

12 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Level 3 Screening

13 Unfavorable Comparable Unfavorable Unfavorable Eliminate

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bald Eagle

Am

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Rapids Hugo Withrow New Richmond

Elk River

Cambridge

North Branch

Dresser Turtle Lake

Hinckley

Mora

Little Falls Brook Park

Camp Ripley

Genola

Staples Brainerd

Carlton

Moose Lake

Duluth

Foxboro Boy

Min. Wisc.

Aitkin

Royalton

Sup

Rush City

Milaca

±

Figure 1

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives

0 

NOTE: Numbers denote route alternatives

1‐9 10‐13

8 & 9

6 & 7

1,2,3,4,5

4,5,6,7

4 & 5

10 & 11

1 & 2

4,6,8,10

5,7,9,11

12

1,2,3

1

1

2

3

4,6,8,10

4,5,6,7,8,9
!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Rapids Hugo

Cambridge

North Branch

Hinckley Brook Park

Staples Brainerd

Moose Lake

Duluth

Min. Wisc.

Superior

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

St. Croix Falls

8 10

Bald Eagle

Withrow

Figure 2

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives Recommended

for Level 1, Step 3 Screening

0 
Appendix A

Corridor Populations of Route Alternatives

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

St.

Cloud

Little

Falls

Staples Brainerd

Aitkin

Superior

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 1

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - St. Cloud, MN - Little Falls, MN -

Staples, MN - Brainerd, MN - Aitkin, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth,MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.86 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 1

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 333,665

Total 2,860,394

I 0 10 20 5

Miles
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

St.

Cloud

Little

Falls

Brainerd

Aitkin

Superior

Legend

!5 *Cities

Route Buffer

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 2

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - St. Cloud, MN - Little Falls, MN -

Brainerd, MN - Aitkin, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth,MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.85 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 2

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 321,272

Total 2,848,001
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

St.

Cloud

Superior

Moose

Lake

Genola

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 3

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - St. Cloud, MN - Genola, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth,MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.81 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 3

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 283,533

Total 2,810,262
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

St.

Cloud

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 4

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - St. Cloud, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth,MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.82 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 4

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 290,897

Total 2,817,626
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

St.

Cloud

Superior

Hinckley

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 5

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - St. Cloud, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Superior, WI - Duluth,MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.81 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 5

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 285,354

Total 2,812,083
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Elk

River

Milaca

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 6

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Elk River, MN - Milaca, MN -

Hinckley, MN - Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.70 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 6

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 167,814

Total 2,694,543
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Hinckley

Elk

River

Milaca

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 7

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Elk River, MN - Milaca, MN -

Hinckley, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.69 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 7

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 159,438

Total 2,686,167
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Cambridge

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 8

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN -Cambridge, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 8

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 120,437

Total 2,647,166
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Hinckley

Cambridge

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 9

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN -Cambridge, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.64 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 9

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 115,382

Total 2,642,111
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Rush

City

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 10

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Rush City, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 10

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 127,230

Total 2,653,959
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Hinckley

Rush

City

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 11

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Rush City, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 11

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 119,623

Total 2,646,352
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Dresser

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 12

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Dresser, WI -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.64 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 12

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 114,957

Total 2,641,686
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Turtle

Lake

Spooner

New

Richmond

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 13

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - New Richmond, WI - Turtle Lake, WI -

Spooner, WI - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.66 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops

I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 13

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 135,991

Total 2,662,720
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Memorandum

Subject:    Technical Memorandum 3 – Speed Profiles and Route Travel Times

Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

     Alternatives Analysis – Level 1, Step 3 Screening

Prepared  For:     SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     November 20, 2009

Purpose

This technical memorandum presents the passenger rail speed profiles and travel time comparison

for the five routes being considered in the Level 1 Step 3 screening of route alternatives in the

Northern Lights Express passenger rail corridor.    The screening results are presented here to help

select the best passenger rail route from Minneapolis/St. Paul to Duluth for further study.

Background

The draft Purpose and Need of the NLX project is to provide passenger rail service between

Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth that offers:

 Corridor travel times competitive with automobile travel  

 Safe and reliable rail service

 Amenities that improve passenger travel quality and comfort  

 System continuity with the existing and planned transportation network

The five remaining route alternatives are screened for their ability to best meet the project Purpose

and Need.  Whereas Step 2 compared all thirteen of the route alternatives, Step 3 only considers the

five routes ‐ Routes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 ‐ that survived Step 2 screening.  These routes are shown in

Figure 1.   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
2

Methodology

A simple spreadsheet based train performance calculator is used to determine the best theoretical

travel time along each route for comparison.  The train performance calculator employs the following

parameters and assumptions.    These assumptions are likely to prove aggressive in actual

implementation, as speeds may be further restricted for operational and safety considerations.

 Typical modern passenger train performance characteristics are modeled including:

o Acceleration allowing 0‐110 mph in 4.6 miles

o Deceleration at 1 mile per hour per second from 110‐0 mph

 Passenger equipment will tilt, allowing operations at 6 inches total unbalance

 Enhanced superelevation (not exceeding 4.0 inches) is employed in curves on all tracks used

by passenger trains

 Municipal speed restrictions are eliminated, as the corridor will be “sealed” with 4 quadrant

gates at public crossings in high speed territory

 Passenger speed on the BNSF from Minneapolis to Coon Creek is limited to 79 mph, except as

restricted by curvature.

 Passenger speed on the CP from Minneapolis to Hugo and Withrow is limited to 79 mph,

except as restricted by curvature.

 Passenger speed between Superior and Duluth is limited to 30 and 60 mph.

 All other route segments allow a maximum passenger speed of 110 mph, except as limited by

curvature

 Possible degradation in performance due to grades is not considered

 Travel times are calculated including a schedule pad as recommended by the FRA.  Typically,

the pad ranges from 7% for a double track alignment to approximately 15‐20% for a single

track with passing sidings.

 The speed profiles and travel times are computed with no freight interference.    Sufficient

freight infrastructure must be constructed to allow relatively independent operations.

Railroad track charts have been used to identify the track geometric features including tangent

segments, grades and curves.    The track charts provide the approximate location, length and

magnitude of each.  This data has been loaded into a spreadsheet for use in computing theoretical

passenger train travel times under the assumptions noted above.  Where track charts could not be

obtained, such as for abandoned railroad rights‐of‐way, curvature was measured using aerial

photography and geometric calculations in CAD software, while grades are assumed to be less than

1%.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
3

Theoretical travel times (including pad) are calculated for each route between Minneapolis and

Duluth with 2 minute station stops at Hinkley/Danbury and Superior.  Additional intermediate station

stops will increase travel times.

The specific routing for each of the five route alternatives is shown in Figures 1‐3.  For the purpose of

comparing route travel times, each of the routes has its terminal station at the Minneapolis

downtown Intermodal Station, and at the Duluth Union Depot.    The use of these terminals for

comparing route alternatives is consistent throughout Level 3 screening.

Graphical Presentation of Data

Track characteristics and train performance data including Curvature, Number of Existing Tracks,

Freight Density, Passenger Speed Profile and Grade Crossing Quantity are presented for each route in

Appendix A.

Curvature is a key parameter in determining the suitability of a rail alignment for high speed

passenger service.  The maximum permissible speed is primarily a function of the track curvature, installed

superelevation and permissible unbalance of the operating equipment.  Curvature up to approximately 1.0

degrees will permit the maximum speed of 110 mph for tilting passenger equipment.  Greater curvature

willserve to restrict the speeds and increase the travel times.  Due to the existence of natural featuressuch

as waterways, wetlands and mountains and man‐made structures, it is often difficult to realign railroads to

reduce curvature.  The actual curvature of the alternative routes is presented in the Curvature graphs.  By

inspection, the location, length and magnitude of speed restricting curves can be determined and

compared among the route alternatives.  

A rough determination of the route capacity can be determined by considering the Number of

Existing Tracks and the existing Freight Density (in trains per day), each of which is plotted for the

alternative routes.    The MnDOT Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations publishes

freight traffic data along many routes within the state.  Freight density data shown in these charts is

as of May, 2009.    

The FRA tabulates Grade Crossing data in a national database.  Grade crossings present both a safety

and cost issue.  The FRA has recommended mitigating the risk posed by grade crossings by employing

active warning systems including gates and flashers.  A sealed corridor concept is recommended for

110 mph high speed rail service, which generally includes four quadrant gates (or other similar

measures) at public crossings and two quadrant gates at private crossings.  The quantities of private

and public crossings are tabulated for each route, allowing a simple comparison.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
4

Steep grades may impact the acceleration and braking performance of trains, as trains typically

employ relatively low power to weight rations as compared to other modes of transportation.  

Freight train routes seek to employ grades not exceeding 1% so as to enable the movement of large

loads with relatively few locomotives.  Since passenger trains are relatively light compared to freight

trains and employ relatively powerful locomotives to achieve high speeds, grades less than 1% do not

significantly impact travel times.    The grades found along the selected route alternatives are

generally less than 1%, so are not considered in this analysis.

Passenger Speed Profiles and Travel Times (including pad) have been developed for modern

passenger equipment operating on each of the route alternatives.  The graphs depict the theoretical

speeds achieved as a passenger train moves from Minneapolis to Duluth subject to geometric

throughout the system and imposed speed limits in the vicinity of Minneapolis and Superior/Duluth

as noted in the assumptions above.  For ease in determining where speed limits are proposed to be

increased, the existing timetable speeds are also depicted in graphs.   

Summary results of TPC travel times are shown below in Table 1.    The frequency and magnitude of

curvature along Route 12 between Minneapolis and Danbury decreases speeds in this segment, and

results in Route 12 having the longest travel time relative to the baseline Route 9.  This is despite

Route 12 being the shortest of all five routes.  

Table 1 – Train Performance Calculator (TPC) Travel Time Comparison

Route Route Distance

(Miles)

TPC Travel

Time

Increase/ (Decrease)

vs. Baseline TPC

Travel Time

Baseline (Route 9) 151.2     ‐

8 161.7 2 hr 8 min 12 min

9 151.2 1 hr 56 min  ‐

10 162.4 2 hr 15 min 19 min

11 151.9 2 hr 4 min 8 min

12 151.2 2 hr 16 min 20 min

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

St. Cloud

Minneapolis

St. Paul

Coon Rapids Hugo

Cambridge

North Branch

Hinckley Brook Park

Staples Brainerd

Moose Lake

Duluth

Min. Wisc.

Superior

8

8

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

St. Croix Falls

8 10

Bald Eagle

Withrow

Figure 1

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives Recommended

for Level 1, Step 3 Screening

0 

!.

£¤2

Æb

Duluth Union Depot

BNSF BNSF

Route 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Routes 8, 9, 10 & 11 to Hinckley

Route 12 to Dresser, WI

À

Lake Superior

St. Louis

Carlton

Douglas

Wisconsin

Minnesota

UV61

UV3

UV39 UV23

UV

194

UV

105

£¤53

£¤53

£¤2 £¤53

£¤2

£¤2

£¤2 £¤53

£¤2

£¤2

£¤53

£¤53

§ ̈¦535

§ ̈¦35

Hermantown

Oliver

Superior

Proctor

Superior

Duluth

Duluth

Legend

Possible Route Alternatives

Figure 3 - Route Alternatives

Within Greater Duluth  ́ 0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles
Appendix A

Route Alternatives Speed Profiles

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Route #8

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00110.00115.00120.00125.00130.00135.00140.00145.00150.00155.00160.00

Mile 

Curvature

CURVATURE (°)

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #9

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00

105.00110.00115.00120.00125.00130.00135.00140.00145.00150.00

Mile 

Curvature

CURVATURE (°)

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #10

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.00

85.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00110.00115.00120.00125.00130.00135.00140.00145.00150.00155.00160.00165.00

Mile 

Curvature

CURVATURE (°)

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #11

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.005.00

10.00

15.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00110.00115.00120.00125.00130.00135.00140.00145.00150.00155.00

Mile 

Curvature

CURVATURE (°)

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #12

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0.005.00

10.00

15.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00110.00115.00120.00125.00130.00135.00140.00145.00150.00155.00160.00

Mile 

Curvature

CURVATURE (°)

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Danbury

(50.62)

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Mile 

Number of Existing Tracks

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

Mile 

Number of Existing Tracks

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Mile 

Number of Existing Tracks

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

Mile 

Number of Existing Tracks

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #12

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Mile 

Number of Existing Tracks

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Danbury

(50.62)

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #8

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

60.00

65.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Trains per Day

Mile 

Freight Density

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

Trains per Day

Mile 

Freight Density

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Trains per Day

Mile 

Freight Density

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

Trains per Day

Mile 

Freight Density

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

Train per Day

Mile 

Freight Density

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Danbury

(50.62)

Duluth

(0.0)
Route #8

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

mph

Mile 

Passenger Speed Profile

TPC Speed Max Speed through Curve Existing Speed Limits

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)

TRAIN PERFORMANCE 

ACCELERATION: DECELERATION:

0<x<50 4000 mi/hr^2 -3600 mi/hr^2

50<x<80 1800 mi/hr^2

80<x<110 878 mi/hr^2

TPC TRAVEL TIME: 2 hrs 8 min

(Two minutes allotted per intermediate station stop)
Route #9

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

mph

Mile

Passenger Speed Profile

TPC Speed Max Speed through Curve Existing Speed Limit

TRAIN PERFORMANCE 

ACCELERATION: DECELERATION:

0<x<50 4000 mi/hr^2 -3600 mi/hr^2

50<x<80 1800 mi/hr^2

80<x<110 878 mi/hr^2

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)

TPC TRAVEL TIME: 1 hrs 56 min

(Two minutes allotted per intermediate station stop)
Route #10

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

mph

Mile 

Passenger Speed Profile

TPC Speed Max Speed through Curve Existing Speed Limit

TRAIN PERFORMANCE 

ACCELERATION: DECELERATION:

0<x<50 4000 mi/hr^2 -3600 mi/hr^2

50<x<80 1800 mi/hr^2

80<x<110 878 mi/hr^2

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)

TPC TRAVEL TIME: 2 hrs 15 min

(Two minutes allotted per intermediate station stop)
Route #11

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00

mph

Mile 

Passenger Speed Profile

TPC Speed Max Speed through Curve Existing Speed Limit

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Hinckley

MP 72.30

Duluth

(0.0)

TRAIN PERFORMANCE 

ACCELERATION: DECELERATION:

0<x<50 4000 mi/hr^2 -3600 mi/hr^2

50<x<80 1800 mi/hr^2

80<x<110 878 mi/hr^2

TPC TRAVEL TIME: 2 hrs 4 min

(Two minutes allotted per intermediate station stop)
Route #12

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 150.00 160.00

mph

Mile 

Passenger Speed Profile

TPC Speed Max Speed through Curve Existing Speed Limit

TRAIN PERFORMANCE 

ACCELERATION: DECELERATION:

0<x<50 4000 mi/hr^2 -3600 mi/hr^2

50<x<80 1800 mi/hr^2

80<x<110 878 mi/hr^2

Minneapolis

MP 10.39

Superior

MP 5.4

Danbury

(50.62)

Duluth

(0.0)

TPC TRAVEL TIME: 2 hrs 16 min

(Two minutes allotted per intermediate station stop)
80

100120140160180

Number of Crossings

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives

Grade Crossings

0

20406080

100120140160180

Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Rou

Number of Crossings

Route Number

Northern Lights Express Route Alternatives

Grade Crossings
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Memorandum

Subject:     Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

     Alternatives Analysis – Level 1, Step 3 Screening

Technical Memorandum 4 – Intermodal Stations

PreparedFor:    SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     November 20, 2009

Purpose  

This technical memorandum provides information to the participants of the engineering planning

charrette or interactive workshop on intermodal terminal/station opportunities for the five routes

that remain in the Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Northern Lights Express (NLX) Alternatives Analysis.

Intermodal Stations

1. Minneapolis/St. Paul Region

Two sites in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul region are identified as possible intermodal sites

that could serve the NLX.

1.1 Minneapolis Downtown Intermodal Station  

A new intermodal station is planned in downtown Minneapolis near the new Target Field.  This future

multimodal transit station will be located adjacent and just north of the new Twins Target Field ball

park on 5th St. between 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue and  is planned to  accommodate other modes

of transportation, including taxi, pedestrian, bicycle, and integration of the nearby bus network.

Currently this location is near the confluence of several transit lines operated by Twin Cities Metro

Transit, including:

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
2

 The Northstar Commuter Rail line – the Northstar commuter rail line extends from its

southern terminus in downtown Minneapolis forty miles north/northwest toward Big Lake,

MN.    The Northstar is scheduled to begin service in November 2009, and will make six

weekday trips per day in each direction1

.

 The Hiawatha Light Rail Line ‐ The Hiawatha line extends south from downtown Minneapolis,

with seventeen stops between downtown and the Mall of America, including both the

Lindbergh and the Humphrey terminals at Minneapolis St Paul International Airport.  A recent

northern extension moves the northern terminus of the Hiawatha to a new station near the

Minneapolis Downtown Intermodal Station, adjacent to the Northstar commuter rail line

station2

.   

 Twin Cities Metro Transit Bus Service  ‐  The existing Ramp B/5th Street transit center is

located less than two blocks from the Intermodal Station, and provides bus service as part of

the overall Metro Transit Bus Service.  Additional bus service is also planned as part of the

future build‐out of the station2

.   

Each of the five remaining routes has direct access to this intermodal station via the double‐track

BNSF Wayzata Subdivision.  The Wayzata Subdivision connects to the BNSF Midway subdivision via a

wye track at Minneapolis Junction, approximately 1.5 miles west of the Intermodal Station.    At

Minneapolis Junction, all five routes proceed north on the Midway subdivision, sharing the same

track right‐of‐way as the North Star.   

The TEMS Feasibility Study and a 2008 downtown intermodal station study by Hennepin County   

discussed the use of the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station as the southern terminal of the

NLX.  

1.2 St. Paul’s Union Depot  

The Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority is planning to develop a multimodal transit hub at the

existing St. Paul Union Depot in downtown St. Paul.   As described on the county’s website, Union

Depot would serve as a stop on the future Rush Line and the Red Rock commuter rail lines, and on

the future Central Corridor light rail line that will connect downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul.  The

Eastern end of the Central Corridor line will share stations with the Hiawatha line’s five stations on its

western end, which includes the Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station.

Plans call for the use of Union Depot as an Amtrak stop on Amtrak’s Empire Builder service that runs

daily service between Chicago and Seattle.  Union Depot is also used as the endpoint on the Chicago‐

Madison‐St. Paul route as part of the Midwest Regional Rail System.  Union Depot also proposes to

service Greyhound and Jefferson Lines intercity buses, and Metro Transit regional buses.   

                                                           

1 http://www.northstartrain.org/

2 http://metrotransit.org/

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
3

The five remaining routes under consideration can connect to the St Paul Union Depot.

1.3 Metropolitan Airports

Minneapolis‐St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is located approximately 12 miles south of

downtown St. Paul.  Intermodal connections to and from Minneapolis‐St. Paul International Airport

(MSP) are provided by private ground transportation.  Light rail transit via the Hiawatha line provides

service to downtown Minneapolis.  No existing freight track or track right‐of‐way connects the airport

with downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), a public corporation of the state of Minnesota, also

operates six ‘reliever’ airports in the Minneapolis‐St. Paul metro area to help relieve congestion at

MSP.  Of these, only the St. Paul Downtown Holman Field airport had more than 500 enplanements

in 20083

.   Holman Field is located east of downtown St. Paul on the south bank of the Mississippi

River, and does not have any direct access to existing rail lines.

2. Minneapolis/St. Paul – Duluth Corridor

No major intermodal facilities currently exist in the corridor.   Amtrak and Greyhound service several

towns in the Minneapolis/St. Paul  ‐  Duluth corridor, including North Branch, Rush City, Pine City,

Hinckley, Moose Lake, Sandstone, and Cloquet.   All these cities and towns are located adjacent to

Interstate 35 that connects Minneapolis/St. Paul with Duluth.   

Amtrak provides shuttle service from the St. Paul Midway Station to Duluth as an extension of its

Empire Builder service, with intermediate stops in Cloquet, MN and Sandstone, MN.   Other than

service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth within the I‐35 corridor, no other transportation

providers provide frequent transit service that connects transit riders to destinations outside of the

corridor.

Routes 10 and 11 parallel I‐35 to the west between St. Paul and Hinckley, adjacent to the west by

approximately 1 mile.    North of Hinckley into Duluth, Routes 9 and 11 parallel I‐35 to the west,

adjacent by approximately 2‐3 miles.  Cities and towns located along the I‐35 corridor are the only

likely candidates outside the Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth metropolitan areas that could serve

new multimodal transit stations that would complement a passenger rail line.

3. Duluth/Superior Region

No major passenger intermodal stations existing in Duluth metropolitan area.  Transit Service in the

region is provided by the Duluth Transit Authority, which provides bus service within Duluth and the

surrounding area, including Superior, WI.  A majority of these bus routes run through the downtown

                                                           

3 http://www.faa.gov/

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
4

Duluth Central Business District, where the Duluth Union Depot is located.  Greyhound and Amtrak

shuttle bus service serve Duluth/Superior with one station stop 3.5 miles south of the downtown

Duluth Central Business District.

All five of the Step 3 route alternatives enter the Duluth/Superior region from the south via BNSF

tracks into Superior.    For each of these routes, access into Duluth is via the BNSF and Canadian

National lines that parallel St. Louis Bay to the north and proceed into downtown.    The Duluth

International Airport needs to be studied as a potential intermodal connection to the high speed rail

system.   The selection of the routing of high speed passenger rail service into the Duluth‐Superior

area will be undertaken in subsequent tasks.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Memorandum

Subject:    Technical Memorandum 5 – Ridership Potential

Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

     Alternatives Analysis – Level 1, Step 3 Screening

Prepared  For:     SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     November 20, 2009

Purpose

This technical memorandum provides population information to the participants of the engineering

planning charrette or interactive workshop for the five routes that remain in the

Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Northern Lights Express (NLX) Alternatives Analysis.

Population and Ridership Potential

A reasonable assumption for estimating ridership is that potential ridership in a passenger rail

corridor is directly related to the population within the service area.  Based on this assumption, route

populations were calculated for each route alternative using GIS software and US census data from

the year 2000.  The route populations for each route include cities and towns within a 20‐mile band

of each route, and within a 20 mile radius of each of the terminal stations in Minneapolis and Duluth.   

As described in Technical Memorandum 2, the terminal stations used for this analysis are the

Minneapolis downtown Intermodal Station, and the Duluth Union Depot.    These terminal stations

were identified in the 2007 TEMS Inc. report ‘Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity

Passenger Rail Service’ (the ‘TEMS Feasibility Study’).   Maps depicting these population bands for

each of these route alternatives are shown in Appendix A.

As shown in Table 1, the populations in the Greater Minneapolis/St. Paul and Duluth regions make up

more the 95% of the corridor populations of each of the five remaining route alternatives.  

Population differences among each of the corridors are relatively small.  The difference between the

most and least populous routes is 12,273, which represents less than 1% of any route total.

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
2

Table 1 – Population Breakdown of Route Alternatives

Route 8 Route 9 Route 10 Route 11 Route 12

Greater Minneapolis/St.

Paul Population 2,352,689 2,352,689 2,352,689 2,352,689 2,352,689

Greater Duluth

Population 174,040 174,040 174,040 174,040 174,040

Corridor Population 120,437 115,382 127,230 119,623 114,957

Corridor Population as

Percentage of Route Total 4.55% 4.37% 4.79% 4.52% 4.35%

Minneapolis/St. Paul and

Duluth Regions as

Percentage of Route Total

95.45% 95.63% 95.21% 95.48% 95.65%

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
Appendix A

Corridor Populations of Route Alternatives

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Cambridge

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 8

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN -Cambridge, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 8

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 120,437

Total 2,647,166
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Hinckley

Cambridge

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 9

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN -Cambridge, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.64 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 9

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 115,382

Total 2,642,111
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Moose

Lake

Hinckley

Rush

City

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 10

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Rush City, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Moose Lake, MN - Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 10

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 127,230

Total 2,653,959
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Hinckley

Rush

City

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 11

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Rush City, MN - Hinckley, MN -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.65 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 11

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 119,623

Total 2,646,352
§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦35

UV23

UV210

£¤2

£¤10

£¤8

£¤63

§ ̈¦35

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Minneapolis/St

Paul

Duluth

Superior

Dresser

Legend

!5 *Cities

Possible High Speed Rail Route

Route Buffer

Population per Census Block

0 - 39

40 - 144

145 - 399

400 - 1126

1127 - 9361

Northern Light Express

Alternatives Analysis

MinneapolisTerminal Population

2.4 million

Duluth Terminal Population

0.17 million

Data Sources

2000 US Census Data - census blocks

2000 ESRI Census Data (SF1) - population

2009 ESRI Data & Maps - base data

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 12

Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN - Dresser, WI -

Superior, WI - Duluth, MN

Route Population (2000, 20 mi band): 2.64 million

*Cities are shown to identify the 

route and are not necessarily 

the planned station stops I 0 10 20 5

Miles

Minneapolis - Duluth Route 12

Minneapolis 2,352,689

Duluth 174,040

Corridor 114,957

Total 2,641,686
 Quandel Consultants, LLC

Engineering Services 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 558-1345 

Fax: (312) 346-9603

E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com 

www.quandel.com

1

Technical Memorandum

Subject:    Technical Memorandum 6 – Cost of Improvements

Minnesota Northern Lights Express Project

Alternatives Analysis – Level 1, Step 3 Screening

Prepared  For:     SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

PreparedBy:   Quandel Consultants, LLC

CC:   

Date:     November 20, 2009

Purpose

This technical memorandum provides information to the participants of the engineering planning

charrette or interactive workshop on improvement costs for the five routes that remain in the

Minneapolis‐Duluth/Superior Northern Lights Express (NLX) Alternatives Analysis.

Cost of Improvements  

This technical memorandum presents the cost of improvements for the five remaining route

alternatives identified in Technical Memorandum 2 as follows:

Route 8 – BNSF/Munger Trail

Route 9 – BNSF

Route 10 – St Croix valley/Munger trail

Route 11 – St. croix valley/BNSF

Route 12 – Gandy Dancer Trail

The cost estimates were based on the unit costs developed for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative in

2002.    These costs were updated to 2009 dollars using the inflation factors listed in the Producer

Price Index PCUBHVY ‘PPI Inputs for Other Heavy Construction’, which increased unit costs from 2002

by a factor of 1.47.   Quantities for each pay item were calculated specifically for each route using

existing track conditions, track geometry, and bridge and crossing data.   

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
2

The cost estimates are presented in table 1 below and display the difference in cost of each route

from the baseline.

Table 1 – Route Alternatives Level 1, Step 3

Cost of Improvements Screening Summary

Route Number

Increase Vs.  

Baseline Cost  

8 63%

9  ‐ 

10 108%

11 45%

12 106%

Quandel Consultants, LLC December 31, 2009
APPENDIX C-2 

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A

LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS



NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page ii 

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3 

1.3 STUDY APPROACH........................................................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................ 1-5 

2.1 STATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 ZONE SYSTEM................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.3 RAIL SERVICE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 2-6 

3.1 OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 ZONE DEFINITION............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE AND PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.4 EXISTING TRAVEL MARKETS .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.5 ORIGIN-DESTINATION TRIP INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 3-6 

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE COMPASSTM MODEL.................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.3 FUTURE TRAVEL MARKET STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 4-3 

4.4 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECAST RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT ROUTES .................................................................... 4-5 

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 ROUTE 9 CAPITAL COST EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 5-4 

5.3 ROUTE 11 CAPITAL COST EVALUATION............................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.4 OVERALL CAPITAL COSTS................................................................................................................................ 5-10

6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 TRAIN SERVICE AND OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.3 TRAIN SCHEDULING AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 6-6 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page iii 

7.1 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – VARIABLE OR DIRECT COSTS ........................................................... 7-2 

7.2 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – ROUTE FIXED COSTS...................................................................... 7-5 

7.3 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – COST RESULTS.............................................................................. 7-9 

7.4 VALIDATION OF COST RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 7-12

8.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................ 8-1 

8.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS....................................................................................................................................... 8-2 

8.3 ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................................................... 8-3 

8.4 BENEFITS TO USERS OF OTHER MODES............................................................................................................... 8-6 

8.5 TYPE OF COSTS ............................................................................................................................................... 8-7 

8.6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 8-7 

8.7 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 8-9 

8.8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 8-11
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-1 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-2 




NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-3 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-4 







 

1
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-5 





 

2
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-1 

414,036

222,254

Population 2004
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-2 

222,254

41,520

Population 2004

17,130

16,854

Cardigan Jct.

White Bear Lake

Population 2004
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-3 

24,253

9,458

Cardigan Jct.

White Bear Lake

North Branch

Cambridge

Population 2004
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-4 

9,458

4,031

Population 2004

Comparison of Station Area Populations Route 9 and Routes 11/11A (15 min drive time)

Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A

Minneapolis 677,005 Minneapolis 677,005 Minneapolis 677,005

Foley Blvd. 414,036 White Bear Lake 222,254 St. Paul 512,592

Cambridge 24,253 North Branch 9,458 White Bear Lake 222,254

– – North Branch 9,458

Totals 1,115,294 908,717 1,421,309
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-5 

White Bear Lake vs

Cardigan Jct.

White Bear Lake vs Forest 

Lake North Branch vs Rush City

Population

White Bear Lake is slightly 

larger within 7 minutes 

drive.

White Bear Lake is larger 

within 15 minutes drive.

North Branch larger within 

15 minutes drive.

Trip Length to St. Paul or 

Minneapolis

White Bear Lake has longer 

Trip length.

Forest Lake has longer trip 

length but both more than 15 

miles to St. Paul and White 

Bear Lake is similar to Foley 

Blvd which is 12 miles to 

Minneapolis.

Rush City has longer trip 

length but both more than 

40 miles and North Branch 

is similar to Cambridge.

Quality of Station Site Cardigan Jct. Problematic Both have good potential Both have good potential

Access to Highways

Both have Interstate 

Highway access. Cardigan 

Jct has east/west access in 

I 694, White Bear Lake has 

good north/south access 

in I 35E.

Both have good 

north/south Interstate 

Highway access - I 35. 

White Bear Lake also has 

good east/west access in 

Route 96 to West Ramsey 

County.

Both have good 

north/south Interstate 

Highway access - I 35. 

North Branch also has 

good east/west access in 

Route 95 to Cambridge.

Compatibility with Route 

9 Option

Cardigan Jct only 8 miles 

from St. Paul, White Bear 

Lake is 12 miles from St. 

Paul & Foley Blvd. is 12 

miles from Minneapolis.

Foley Blvd is 12 miles from 

Minneapolis which is 

comparable with White 

Bear Lake at 15 miles to St. 

Paul while Forest Lake is 26 

miles.

Cambridge is 45 miles 

from Minneapolis which is 

comparable with North 

Branch at 42 miles from 

St. Paul while Rush City is 

55 miles.

RECOMMENDATION Use White Bear Lake Use White Bear Lake Use North Branch
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-6 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-7 

Input Interactive

Analysis Output

Service Plan 

Infrastructure

Trains

Market Analysis

LOCOMOTIONTM 

Scheduling & 

Operations

TRACKMANTM

Terminal 

Facilities

COMPASSTM 

Ridership & 

Fares

Operating 

Costs

Capital 

Costs

Revenues

Financial &

Economic

Feasibility
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-1 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-2 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-3 






















NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-4 






















NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-5 

From To

Distance 

(miles)

Time 

(minutes)

Daily 

Frequency Fare Cost ($)

Duluth(DLH) Minneapolis (MSP) 144 60 7 224

Duluth (DLH) Detroit (DTW) 542 111 2 625

Duluth (DLH) Chicago (CHI) 402 87 2 150

Train

Highest Speed 

(mph) Frequency(train/day)

Time

(minutes) Fare Cost ($/mile)

Amtrak P42 79 2 170 0.22
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-6 

Mode Data Source Data Enhancement Required

Auto

The Metropolitan Council 2008 Trip Data

The Minnesota DOT AADT count 

Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Corridor 2008

Trip Simulation for Auto Flows Movement 

and AADT Counts

Rail

Amtrak Station Data

Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Corridor 2008

Access/Egress Simulation

Bus Bus Schedules

Estimated Bus Loading Factors Access/Egress Simulation

Air Bureau of Transportation Statistics 10% Ticket Sample

Flight Schedules Access/Egress Simulation
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 3-7 

Business Commuter Other (include Casino) Total

3.17 7.57 11.42 22.16

14.31% 34.16% 51.53% 100.00%

Socioeconomic 

Data

Travel 

Attributes

Trip Matrix 

Simulation

Control Using InterStation 

Volume/AADTS

Control Using 

Intersection/Station 

Traffic Counts

Trip Matrix 

Socioeconomic 

Data

Travel 

Attributes

Trip Matrix 

Simulation

Control Using InterStation 

Volume/AADTS

Control Using 

Intersection/Station 

Traffic Counts

Trip Matrix 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-1 

This chapter presents the passenger rail ridership and revenue forecast results obtained for 

Routes 9, 11 and 11A for the Duluth-Minneapolis corridor. It should be noted that the model 

databases do not include special events (e.g., concerts or sporting events) and therefore, reflect 

conservative estimates of the ridership potential based only on regular, daily city interactions. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-2 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-3 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033

Year

2008$ per Barrel

Central Case

U.S. Imported Crude 

Oil Cost by Refiners: 

Historic Data and 

Projections
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-4 

1

 Sources: EIA - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html and 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_a.htm

2

 Analysis developed by TEMS, Inc. for MARAD US DOT. Sources: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mg_tt_us&f=a and 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_rac2_dcu_nus_a.htm

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Gas Price (2010$/Gallon)

High Case

Central Case

Low Case

y = 0.03x + 0.99

R

2

 = 0.98

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Imported Crude Oil Cost by Refiners (2008$ per barrel) 

Retail Gasoline Prices ($2008 per Gallon)

Energy Prices: U.S. Retail 

Gasoline Prices as a Function of 

Crude Oil Prices (1993-2008)
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-5 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-6 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-7 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-8 

3.09%

1.78%

0.79%

94.33%

Route 11

3.57%

1.77%

0.82%

93.84%

Route 11A

3.48%

1.77%

0.74%

94.00%

Route 9
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-9 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 4-10
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-1 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-2 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-3 

Segment Number Segment Limits Segment Length (miles) Owner

1

Target Field to Minneapolis 

Junction 1.9 BNSF 

2

Minneapolis Junction to 

University Avenue 1.9 BNSF 

3

University Ave to Coon Creek 

Junction 9.2 BNSF 

4 Coon Creek Junction to Isanti 23.6 BNSF 

5 Isanti to Cambridge 6.1 BNSF 

6 Cambridge to Hinckley 34.9 BNSF 

7

University Ave. to Cardigan 

Junction 8.6 CP

8 Cardigan Junction to Bald Eagle 6.7 CP 

9 Bald Eagle to Hugo 4.2 Minnesota Commercial Railway 

10 Hugo to North Branch 24.0 Public 

11 North Branch to Hinckley 35.5 St. Croix Valley Railway

12 Minneapolis Junction to MN 

Transfer 3.2 BNSF 

13 MN Transfer to Fordson Junction 5.6 Minnesota Commercial Railway

/ CP

14 Fordson Junction to St. Paul 

Union Depot 1.5 CP 

15 St. Paul Union Depot to Soo 

Junction 3.0 BNSF 

16 Soo Junction to Cardigan 

Junction 5.3 CP 

17 Hinckley to Boylston 60.5 BNSF 

18 Boylston to Superior 8.5 BNSF 

19 Superior to Duluth 6.3 BNSF
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-4 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-5 

Segment Number Segment Limits Segment Length (miles) Owner Segment Cost (1000’s) Cost Per Mile (1000’s)

1

Target Field to Minneapolis 

Junction 1.9 BNSF $8,221 $4,350

2

Minneapolis Junction to 

University Avenue 1.9 BNSF $11,943 $6,319

3

University Ave to Coon Creek 

Junction 9.2 BNSF $67,909 $7,357

4 Coon Creek Junction to Isanti 23.6 BNSF $48,542 $2,059

5 Isanti to Cambridge 6.1 BNSF $52,156 $8,607

6 Cambridge to Hinckley 34.9 BNSF $289,338 $8,283

17 Hinckley to Boylston 60.5 BNSF $190,702 $3,154

18 Boylston to Superior 8.5 BNSF $68,022 $7,974

19 Superior to Duluth 6.3 BNSF $84,654 $13,480

Total 152.9 $821,487 $5,372.71
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-6 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-7 

Segment Number Segment Limits Segment Length (miles) Owner Segment Cost (1000’s) Cost Per Mile (1000’s)

1

Target Field to Minneapolis 

Junction 1.9 BNSF $8,221 $4,350

2

Minneapolis Junction to 

University Avenue 1.9 BNSF $11,943 $6,319

7

University Ave. to Cardigan 

Junction 8.6 CP $224,373 $26,090

8

Cardigan Junction to Bald 

Eagle 6.7 CP $66,876 $10,057

9 Bald Eagle to Hugo 4.2 Minnesota Commercial 

Railway $208,280 $49,709

10 Hugo to North Branch 24 Public $217,138 $9,036

11 North Branch to Hinckley 35.5 St. Croix Valley Railway $282,144 $7,950

17 Hinckley to Boylston 60.5 BNSF $190,702 $3,154

18 Boylston to Superior 8.5 BNSF $68,022 $7,974

19 Superior to Duluth 6.3 BNSF $84,654 $13,480

Total 158.1 $1,362,353 $8,617.03
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-8 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-9 

Segment Number Segment Limits Segment Length (miles) Owner Segment Cost (1000’s) Cost Per Mile (1000’s)

1

Target Field to Minneapolis 

Junction 1.9 BNSF $8,221 $4,350

12 Minneapolis Junction to 

Minnesota Transfer 3.2 BNSF $24,694 $7,717

13 Minnesota Transfer to 

Fordson Junction 5.6 Minnesota Commercial Railway / CP $90,486 $16,101

14 Fordson Junction to St. Paul 

Union Depot 1.5 CP $47,939 $31,130

15 St. Paul Union Depot to Soo 

Junction 3.0 BNSF $90,976 $30,325

16 Soo Junction to Cardigan 

Junction 5.3 CP $112,828 $21,450

8

Cardigan Junction to Bald 

Eagle 6.7 CP $66,876 $10,057

9 Bald Eagle to Hugo 4.2 Minnesota Commercial 

Railway $208,280 $49,709

10 Hugo to North Branch 24.0 Public $217,138 $9,036

11 North Branch to Hinckley 35.5 St. Croix Valley Railway $282,144 $7,950

17 Hinckley to Boylston 60.5 BNSF $190,702 $3,154

18 Boylston to Superior 8.5 BNSF $68,022 $7,974

19 Superior to Duluth 6.3 BNSF $84,654 $13,480

Total 166.2 $1,492,960 $8,982.91
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 5-10

Route Route Length 

(miles)

Capital Cost 

Infrastructure Stations Equipment Total Capital Cost

9 152.9 $821,487 $9,766 $108,100 $939,356

11 158.1 $1,362,353 $9,766 $108,100 $1,480,216

11A 166.2 $1,492,960 $11,271 $108,100 $1,612,331
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-1 

Existing 

Databases

• Market

• Engineering

• Operations

• Financial

• Economic

Capital 

Costs

Engineering 

Analysis

Capacity 

Analysis

Operating 

Plan

Operating 

Costs

Ridership 

& Revenue

Financial & 

Economic 

Analysis

Report

Scenario Formulation

Train Routes and 

Speed

Train Technology and 

Service Levels

Fares, Stations, and 

Quality of Service

Optional as 

Required

Existing 

Databases

• Market

• Engineering

• Operations

• Financial

• Economic

Capital 

Costs

Engineering 

Analysis

Capacity 

Analysis

Operating 

Plan

Operating 

Costs

Ridership 

& Revenue

Financial & 

Economic 

Analysis

Report

Scenario Formulation

Train Routes and 

Speed

Train Technology and 

Service Levels

Fares, Stations, and 

Quality of Service

Optional as 

Required
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-2 

Talgo T21 ICE TD / ACE 3
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-3 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-4 




NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-5 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-6 

Trainset A B C A B C A B

Northbound #7000 #7002 #7004 #7006 #7008 #7010 #7012 #7014

MTI 7:05 8:45 11:10 13:35 16:00 17:20 19:45 22:10

Foley Blvd 7:20 9:00 11:25 13:50 16:15 17:35 20:00 22:25

Cambridge 7:46 9:26 11:51 14:16 16:41 18:01 20:26 22:51

Hinckley 8:12 9:52 12:17 14:42 17:07 18:27 20:52 23:17

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Superior 9:11 10:51 13:16 15:51 18:06 19:26 21:51 0:16

Duluth Depot 9:24 11:04 13:29 16:04 18:19 19:39 22:04 0:29

Trainset B C A B C A B C

Southbound #7003 #7005 #7007 #7009 #7011 #7013 #7015 #7017

Duluth Depot 5:10 6:30 10:35 13:00 14:00 16:35 19:10 21:35

Superior 5:25 6:45 10:50 13:15 14:15 16:50 19:25 21:50

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Hinckley 6:23 7:43 11:48 14:13 15:13 17:58 20:23 22:48

Cambridge 6:51 8:11 12:16 14:41 15:41 18:26 20:51 23:16

Foley Blvd 7:17 8:37 12:42 15:07 16:07 18:52 21:17 23:42

MTI 7:30 8:50 12:55 15:20 16:20 19:05 21:30 23:55

Equipment Rotations:

Train A: 7000,7007,7006,7013,7012 Starts at MTI, Ends at Duluth

Train B: 7003,7002,7009,7008,7015,7014 Starts at Duluth, Ends at Duluth

Train C: 7005,7004,7011,7010,7017 Starts at Duluth, Ends at MTI

1) #7011 need to get equipment back into Minneapolis as quickly as possible for evening rush, this is a lightly

used midday departure so meet opposing train #7006 (delaying #7006) in freight siding north of Sandstone.

2) #7008 is advanced to meet peak hour capacity requirement must meet opposing #7013 in freight sidings

north of Sandstone; delay opposing #7013 which will be less heavily loaded

3) Schedules of #7003 and #7010 have to be slotted in between Northstar Commuter Trains

 Schedule Locked due to Northstar Slot

 Meet Point with opposing NLX Train

B A C
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-7 

7003 7005 7000 7002 7007 7004 7009 7011 7006 7013 7008 7010 7015 7012 7017 7014
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-8 

Trainset

Northbound #7000 #7002 #7004 #7006 #7008 #7010 #7012 #7014

MTI 7:05 8:45 11:10 13:35 16:00 17:20 19:45 22:10

White Bear 7:20 9:00 11:25 13:50 16:15 17:35 20:00 22:25

North Branch 7:46 9:26 11:51 14:16 16:41 18:01 20:26 22:51

Hinckley 8:12 9:52 12:17 14:42 17:07 18:27 20:52 23:17

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Superior 9:11 10:51 13:16 15:51 18:06 19:26 21:51 0:16

Duluth Depot 9:24 11:04 13:29 16:04 18:19 19:39 22:04 0:29

Trainset

Southbound #7003 #7005 #7007 #7009 #7011 #7013 #7015 #7017

Duluth Depot 5:10 6:30 10:35 13:00 14:00 16:35 19:10 21:35

Superior 5:25 6:45 10:50 13:15 14:15 16:50 19:25 21:50

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Hinckley 6:23 7:43 11:48 14:13 15:13 17:58 20:23 22:48

North Branch 6:51 8:11 12:16 14:41 15:41 18:26 20:51 23:16

White Bear 7:17 8:37 12:42 15:07 16:07 18:52 21:17 23:42

MTI 7:30 8:50 12:55 15:20 16:20 19:05 21:30 23:55
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-9 

Trainset

Northbound #7000 #7002 #7004 #7006 #7008 #7010 #7012 #7014

MTI 6:42 8:22 10:47 13:12 15:37 16:57 19:22 21:47

St. Paul 7:01 8:41 11:06 13:31 15:56 17:16 19:41 22:06

White Bear 7:20 9:00 11:25 13:50 16:15 17:35 20:00 22:25

North Branch 7:46 9:26 11:51 14:16 16:41 18:01 20:26 22:51

Hinckley 8:12 9:52 12:17 14:42 17:07 18:27 20:52 23:17

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Superior 9:11 10:51 13:16 15:51 18:06 19:26 21:51 0:16

Duluth Depot 9:24 11:04 13:29 16:04 18:19 19:39 22:04 0:29

Trainset

Southbound #7003 #7005 #7007 #7009 #7011 #7013 #7015 #7017

Duluth Depot 5:10 6:30 10:35 13:00 14:00 16:35 19:10 21:35

Superior 5:25 6:45 10:50 13:15 14:15 16:50 19:25 21:50

Sandstone - - - - - - - -

Hinckley 6:23 7:43 11:48 14:13 15:13 17:58 20:23 22:48

North Branch 6:51 8:11 12:16 14:41 15:41 18:26 20:51 23:16

White Bear 7:17 8:37 12:42 15:07 16:07 18:52 21:17 23:42

St. Paul 7:36 8:56 13:01 15:26 16:26 19:11 21:36 0:01

MTI 7:55 9:15 13:20 15:45 16:45 19:30 21:55 0:20
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 6-10




NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-1 





o

o









 

1

 This corridor has no planned feeder bus services for which the rail service is financially responsible, and the treatment of 

operator profit will be discussed in parallel to Service Administration. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-2 

Drivers Cost Categories

Train Miles

Equipment Maintenance

Energy and Fuel

Train and Engine Crews

Onboard Service Crews

Passenger Miles Insurance Liability

Ridership and

Revenue

Sales and Marketing

Ridership

Fixed Cost

Service Administration

Track and ROW Maintenance

Station Costs
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-3 

 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-4 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-5 







 

2

 See: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04240high.pdf

3

 Zeta-Tech, a subsidiary of Harsco (a supplier of track maintenance machinery) is a rail consulting firm who specializes in development of track 

maintenance strategies, costs and related engineering economics. 

4

 For 110-mph service, the level of infrastructure improvements to the corridor called for in this study should provide enough capacity to allow superior 

on-time performance for both freight and passenger operations. It is believed that the capacity improvements proposed in the Engineering evaluation 

provide a reasonable planning basis for establishing costs for this study; but needs to be confirmed by a detailed capacity analysis. The recommended 

strategy for 110-mph service is to provide enough up-front capital improvement to mitigate not only freight delays, but also the need for providing 

additional operating incentives that could adversely affect the passenger system’s ability to attain a positive operating ratio.
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-6 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-7 





development



Year % of Capital 

Maintenance

Year % of Capital 

Maintenance

0 0% 11 50%

1 0% 12 50%

2 0% 13 50%

3 0% 14 50%

4 20% 15 75%

5 20% 16 75%

6 20% 17 75%

7 35% 18 75%

8 35% 19 75%

9 35% 20 100%

10 50%
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-8 







 

5 The Ohio Hub is a proposed 1,244 mile intercity passenger rail system that would serve over 22 million people in five 

states and southern Ontario, Canada. Seven rail corridors with 44 stations would connect twelve major metropolitan areas, 

and many smaller cities and towns. For more information see: http://www.ohiohub.com

6

 In the MWRRS cost model, call center costs were built up directly from ridership, assuming 40 percent of all riders call 

for information, and that the average information call will take 5 minutes for each round trip. Call center costs, therefore, 

are variable by rider and not by train-mile. Assuming some flexibility for assigning personnel to accommodate peaks in 

volume and a 20 percent staffing contingency, variable costs came to 57¢ per rider. These were inflated to 67¢ per rider in 

2010 dollars. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-9 

Train Crew, 12.65%

OBS, 9.16%

Equipment, 26.41%

Fuel, 12.56%

Track, 19.39%

Insurance, 4.78%

Call Ctr Variable + 

Travel Agent and 

Credit Card 

Commision, 5.42%

Stations, 5.03%

Admin and Mgt, 

4.59%

Route 9 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-10

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

Train Crew OBS Equipment Fuel Track Insurance Call Ctr Var

+ T-Agent +

CC Comm

Stations Admin and

Mgt

Route 9

Route 11

Route 11A
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-11

Category Basis Type Route 9 

Cost 

Route 11 

Cost

Route 11A

Cost

Train Crew Train Miles Variable $4.66

OBS Train Miles + 

OBS Revenue

Variable $1.81 (labor) + 50% OBS Revenue

Equipment 

Maintenance Train Miles Variable $7.78 for 200-seat DMU

Energy/Fuel Train miles Variable $2.63 for a 200-seat DMU

Track/ROW Train Miles Fixed

$5,464,338 $7,895,190 $8,114,456

Station Costs Passenger Fixed $1.4 million

$1.99 million, 

Higher due to 

St Paul station

Insurance Pass-miles Variable $0.013

Sales/Mktg/Admin Passenger + 

Ticket Revenue

Both Fixed and 

Variable

Allocation of $5 fixed per train mile, plus $1.69 

variable per train mile, 67¢ per rider and 2.8% of 

revenue
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-12

 

7

 1997 Amtrak costs adjusted for inflation to 2010, excluding depreciation. Source: Intercity Passenger Rail: Financial 

Performance of Amtrak’s routes, U.S. General Accounting Office, May 1998. This validation chart was included in the 

MWRRS report that was published in 2004. 

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 7-13












NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-1 

Th





Types of Benefits Types of Costs Financial Performance 

Measures

Revenues

Operating Cost and 

Maintenance Cost

Operating Ratio

Net Present Value

 

1 U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation for America, pp. 3-7 and 3-8, September 1997 

2

 As defined in the Commercial Feasibility Study, a positive operating ratio does not imply that a passenger service can 

attain “commercial profitability.” Since “operating ratio” as defined here does not include any capital-related costs, this 

report shows that the proposed Ohio Hub network meets the requirements of the Commercial Feasibility Study by covering 

at least its direct operating costs and producing a cash operating surplus.
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-2 









Types of Benefits Types of Costs Measures of

Economic Benefits

Consumer surplus

System revenues

Benefits for users of other modes

Resource benefits

Capital investment needs

Operations and maintenance 

expenses

Benefit-cost ratio

Net Present Value

 

3

 U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation for America, pp. 3-7 and 3-8, September 1997
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-3 

∑

t





 

4

 The discount rate used in this Study is based on Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs, Circular N. A-94, issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

t

t
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-4 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-5 

1 2 1 1 2 2 1

1 2 1

1 2 2 1

1 2 1 1 2 2 1

1

2

1

2

C1 = Generalized Cost users incur 

before the implementation of the 

system

C2 = Generalized Cost users incur 

after the implementation of the 

system

T1 = Ridership without the system

T2 = Ridership with the system

Generalized 

Cost

C1

C2

Consumer 

Surplus

A B

T1 T2 Trips 0
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-6 

Pollutant Dollars per Ton

(2010 dollars)

Average Emission

per Mile (gram)

CO $ 510.33 25

NOx $39,658.09 1.3

VOC $28,393.09 1.05

PM $ 8,560.89 0.09

CO2 $ 22.74 607

 

5

 High-Speed Ground Transportation for America, Federal Railroad Administration, September 1997 

6

 US Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 85, 89 and 92.
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-7 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-8 

1.02 1.14

0.92

0.8 0.9

0.82

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

Operating Ratio for Year 2025 and 2040 

Route 9

Route 11

Route 11a

Financial Analysis Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A

Revenue $590.59 $562.75 $575.19

Operating Cost $568.75 $669.54 $700.77

Operating Surplus $21.84 ($106.79) $(125.58) 

Operating Ratio Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A

2025 Operating Ratio 1.02 0.82 0.80

2040 Operating Ratio 1.14 0.92 0.90
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-9 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-10

Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A

Benefits to User (Present Value Discount at 3%)

 System Passenger Revenues $541.82 $516.28 $527.70

 Advertising Revenues $5.42 $5.16 $5.28

 OBS Revenue $43.35 $41.30 $42.22

Total Operating Revenues $590.59 $562.75 $575.19

 Users Consumer Surplus $718.71 $650.59 $600.15

Total User Benefits $1,309.29 $1,213.33 $1,175.34

Benefits to Public at Large

 Highway Congestion Delay Savings $590.22 $533.64 $540.85

 Highway Reduced Emissions $46.28 $36.46 $51.56

 Highway Fuel Savings $210.47 $190.29 $192.84

 Total Public at Large Benefits $846.98 $760.39 $785.25

Total Benefits $2,156.28 $1,973.72 $1,960.59

 Capital Cost $810.53 $1,277.22 $1,389.92

 Operating Cost $568.75 $669.54 $700.77

 Cyclic Maintenance $30.38 $44.50 $45.67

 Fleet Expansion $32.44 $32.44 $32.44

Total Costs $1,442.11 $2,023.70 $2,168.80

Benefits Less Costs $714.17 ($49.98) ($208.21)

Project Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.5 0.98 0.9
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 8-11

Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A

Benefits to User (Present Value Discount at 7%)

 System Passenger Revenues $258.47 $246.23 $251.49

 Advertising Revenues $2.58 $2.46 $2.51

 OBS Revenue $20.68 $19.70 $20.12

Total Operating Revenues $281.73 $268.39 $274.13

 Users Consumer Surplus $342.43 $309.90 $285.67

Total User Benefits $624.16 $578.29 $559.80

Benefits to Public at Large

 Highway Congestion Delay Savings $266.77 $241.22 $244.54

 Highway Reduced Emissions $22.26 $17.46 $24.75

 Highway Fuel Savings $91.48 $82.71 $83.85

 Total Public at Large Benefits $380.50 $341.40 $353.13

Total Benefits $1,004.67 $919.69 $912.93

 Capital Cost $670.77 $1,056.98 $1,150.25

 Operating Cost $278.21 $327.91 $343.22

 Cyclic Maintenance $11.85 $17.35 $17.81

 Fleet Expansion $19.17 $19.17 $19.17

Total Costs $980.00 $1,421.42 $1,530.45

Benefits Less Costs $24.67 ($501.73) ($617.52)

Project Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.03 0.65 0.6






NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 9-1 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. DecemAPPENDIX A: SOCIOECONOMIC DATAThe study corridor is divided into 123 zones. The following table shows the base year socioeconomic data for e

Zone Centroid Name County State 

2010 

Population 

2010 

Employment 

1 Duluth Downtown St. Louis MN 19,299 15,159 2 Duluth Heights St. Louis MN 34,324 15,940 3 Bloomington Hennepin MN 82,512 108,592 4 Eden Prairie Hennepin MN 57,863 60,974 5 Richfield Hennepin MN 189,526 76,604 6 St. Louis Park - Edina Hennepin MN 166,628 142,410 7 Minneapolis Downtown Hennepin MN 24,137 153,619 8 N. Minneapolis - St. Anthony Hennepin MN 71,554 78,373 9 Brooklyn Center-Robinsdale Hennepin MN 107,867 42,612 

10 Roseville Ramsey MN 58,676 74,052 11 Shoreview - North Oaks Ramsey MN 35,160 11,232 12 White Bear Lake Ramsey MN 36,477 22,376 13 Maplewood - North St. Paul Ramsey MN 137,837 66,503 14 Inner Grove Heights Dakota MN 34,790 18,100 15 Burnsville Dakota MN 71,856 48,023 16 Cottage Grove Washington MN 54,501 13,764 17 Woodbury Washington MN 46,773 24,944 18 Columbia Heights Anoka MN 23,620 14,299 19 Fridley Anoka MN 29,235 30,985 20 Chisago Chisago MN 27,699 15,241 21 Chanhassen Carver MN 33,350 16,655 22 Shakopee Scott MN 44,672 20,931 23 Hutchinson Mcleod MN 38,930 21,344 24 Buffalo Wright MN 136,110 41,214 25 Big Lake Sherburne MN 101,560 26,847 26 Cambridge Isanti MN 10,958 16,697 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Decem

Zone Centroid Name County State 

2010 

Population 

2010 

Employment 

27 Milaca Mille Lacs MN 17,224 6,557 28 Aitkin Aitkin MN 17,050 4,627 29 Cloquest-Scanlon Carlton MN 36,950 14,782 30 City of Hinckley Pine MN 5,114 1,427 31 Ashland Ashaland, Bayfield WI 16,114 4,658 32 Hayward Rusk, Sawyer, Washburn WI 51,230 21,929 33 Hudson St. Croix WI 87,123 32,788 34 Ellsworth Pierce WI 41,695 11,923 35 Red Wing Goodhue MN 48,030 25,388 36 Menomonie Dunn, Pepin WI 52,336 22,821 37 Chippewa Falls Chippewa WI 63,413 26,120 38 Mora Kanabec MN 4,084 4,994 39 Arlington Sibley MN 15,370 4,331 40 Winona Winona MN 49,430 29,474 41 Rochester Olmsted MN 148,130 101,339 42 Fairbault Rice MN 66,420 27,334 43 Le Sueur Le Sueur MN 29,910 9,772 44 Mankato Blue Earth, Nicollet MN 100,420 58,632 45 Willmar Kandiyohi, Meeker MN 66,470 34,194 46 St. Cloud Benton, Sterns MN 43,730 18,465 47 Brainerd Crow Wing, Morrison MN 99,700 45,835 48 Wadena Cass, Todd, Wadena MN 70,350 26,053 49 Grand Rapids Itasca, Koochiching MN 59,300 24,435 50 Two Harbors Lake MN 11,480 4,600 51 St. Croix Falls Polk MN 31,850 14,532 52 Superior Douglas WI 25,754 14,881 53 Arcadia Buffalo, Trempealeau WI 43,126 21,069 54 Wabasha Wabasha MN 22,940 8,309 55 Min-St. Paul Int. Airport Hennepin MN 1,175 42,250 56 Duluth International Airport St. Louis MN 72 2,748 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Decem

Zone Centroid Name County State 

2010 

Population 

2010 

Employment 

57 Grand Casino Hinckley Pine MN 52 1,902 58 Owatonna Dodge, Steele, Waseca MN 79,810 39,134 59 Duluth West St. Louis MN 29,231 12,299 60 Hermantown St. Louis MN 23,419 5,299 61 Virginia - Giants Ridge Ski Resort St. Louis MN 51,542 29,431 62 Pine City Pine MN 4,126 1,099 63 Crossing Rd. 2 & Rd. 53 Douglas WI 13,364 2,744 64 Coon Rapids Anoka MN 54,466 22,962 65 Blaine Anoka MN 60,576 23,980 66 Andover Anoka MN 89,764 29,914 67 Crossing Rd. 65 & Rd. 22 Anoka MN 29,729 5,050 68 Waconia Carver MN 67,480 21,898 69 Lakeville Dakota MN 79,879 21,332 70 Apple Valley-Rosemont Dakota MN 77,873 22,195 71 Castle Rock Dakota MN 8,829 1,934 72 Mendota Heights Dakota MN 13,172 11,047 73 Savage Scott MN 61,666 17,387 74 Jordan Scott MN 25,783 7,659 75 Stillwater Washington MN 41,128 21,007 76 Lakeland Shores Washington MN 15,461 3,050 77 Oakdale Washington MN 36,074 11,670 78 St. Paul Downtown Ramsey MN 77,182 98,880 79 Crystal-New Hope-Golden Valley Hennepin MN 58,494 47,248 80 Plymouth Hennepin MN 106,015 81,752 81 Brooklyn Park-Maple Grove-Champlin Hennepin MN 143,476 78,622 82 Minnetonka-Hopkins Hennepin MN 52,235 50,635 83 Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach Hennepin MN 53,393 20,511 84 Spencer Brook Isanti MN 4,783 594 85 Eagan Dakota MN 60,922 46,498 86 Southwest St. Paul Dakota MN 37,923 22,186 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Decem

Zone Centroid Name County State 

2010 

Population 

2010 

Employment 

87 Hastings Dakota MN 28,876 13,140 88 Cedar Lake Scott MN 22,389 1,331 89 Forest Lake Washington MN 47,053 10,953 90 Loretto Hennepin MN 34,415 19,739 91 Isanti - draw boundaries Isanti MN 12,145 1,508 92 Sandstone Pine MN 5,154 1,624 93 Willow River Pine MN 8,636 1,624 94 Fond-Du-Lutheran Casino St. Louis MN 1,739 14,694 95 Arnold-Lakewood St. Louis MN 17,604 2,273 96 Ely St. Louis MN 19,023 6,764 97 Spirit Mountain Ski Resort St. Louis MN 1,757 380 98 Solon Springs Douglas WI 5,396 967 99 Grand Casino Mille Lacs (Onamia) Mille Lacs MN 3,719 2,462 

100 Eau Claire Eau Claire WI 101,148 64,838 101 Rice Lake Barron WI 48,399 25,436 102 Redwood Falls 

Redwood, Renville, 

Brown MN 59,120 31,191 

103 Siren Burnett WI 17,098 5,559 104 Grand Marais Cook MN 5,570 3,203 105 Macalester - Groveland Ramsey MN 73,188 80,572 106 Roseville East Ramsey MN 58,512 26,174 107 Mounds View Ramsey MN 29,503 20,216 108 Centerville Anoka MN 27,661 3,470 109 St. Francis Anoka MN 20,219 2,810 110 Linwood Anoka MN 9,839 1,240 111 Weber Isanti MN 4,349 540 112 Stanfield Isanti MN 3,560 442 113 Taylors Falls Chisago MN 3,108 1,710 114 North branch Chisago MN 11,710 6,443 115 Dalbo Isanti MN 4,159 517 116 Harris Chisago MN 7,140 3,929 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Decem

Zone Centroid Name County State 

2010 

Population 

2010 

Employment 

117 Rush Point Chisago MN 4,452 2,450 118 Rock Creek Pine MN 3,850 1,026 119 Pine City (West) Pine MN 3,887 1,036 120 Brunswick Kanabec MN 5,411 6,617 121 Ogilvie Kanabec MN 4,234 5,177 122 Woodland Kanabec MN 3,727 4,557 123 Wahkon Mille Lacs MN 6,318 2,405 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-1

APPENDIX B: COMPASSTM MODEL AND CALIBRATION

The COMPASSTM Model System is a flexible multimodal demand-forecasting tool that provides 

comparative evaluations of alternative socioeconomic and network scenarios. It also allows input 

variables to be modified to test the sensitivity of demand to various parameters such as 

elasticities, values of time, and values of frequency. This section describes in detail the model 

methodology and process using in the Duluth-Minneapolis Corridor Study. 

B.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPASSTM SYSTEM

The COMPASSTM model is structured on two principal models: Total Demand Model and 

Hierarchical Modal Split Model. For this study, these two models were calibrated separately for four 

trip purposes, i.e., Business, Commuter, Casino, and Other. Moreover, since the behavior of shortdistance trip making is significantly different from long-distance trip making, the database was 

segmented by distance, and independent models were calibrated for both long and short-distance 

trips. For each market segment, the models were calibrated on origin-destination trip data, 

network characteristics and base year socioeconomic data. 

The models were calibrated on the base year data. In applying the models for forecasting, an 

incremental approach known as the “pivot point” method was used. By applying model growth 

rates to the base data observations, the “pivot point” method is able to preserve the unique travel 

flows present in the base data that are not captured by the model variables. Details on how this 

method is implemented are described below. 

B.2 TOTAL DEMAND MODEL

The Total Demand Model, shown in Equation 1, provides a mechanism for assessing overall growth 

in the travel market. 

Equation 1: 

T

ijp = 

e0p(SEijp)

1pe2p Uijp

 Where, 

T

ijp = Number of trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p

SE

ijp

 = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p

U

ijp = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip 

purpose p

 0p ,  1p ,  2p = Coefficients for trip purpose p 

As shown in Equation 1, the total number of trips between any two zones for all modes of travel, 

segmented by trip purpose, is a function of the socioeconomic characteristics of the zones and the 

total utility of the transportation system that exists between the two zones. For this study, trip 

purposes include Business, Commuter, Casino, and Other. Socioeconomic characteristics consist of 

population, employment and per capita income. The utility function provides a logical and 

intuitively sound method of assigning a value to the travel opportunities provided by the overall 

transportation system. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-2

In the Total Demand Model, the utility function provides a measure of the quality of the 

transportation system in terms of the times, costs, reliability and level of service provided by all 

modes for a given trip purpose. The Total Demand Model equation may be interpreted as meaning 

that travel between zones will increase as socioeconomic factors such as population and income 

rise or as the utility (or quality) of the transportation system is improved by providing new facilities 

and services that reduce travel times and costs. The Total Demand Model can therefore be used to 

evaluate the effect of changes in both socioeconomic and travel characteristics on the total 

demand for travel. 

B.2.1 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES

The socioeconomic variables in the Total Demand Model show the impact of economic growth on 

travel demand. The COMPASSTM Model System, in line with most intercity modeling systems, uses 

three variables (population, employment and per capita income) to represent the socioeconomic 

characteristics of a zone. Different combinations were tested in the calibration process and it was 

found, as is typically found elsewhere, that the most reasonable and stable relationships consists 

of the following formulations: 

Trip Purpose Socioeconomic Variable

 Business Ei 

E

j 

( Ii + I

j 

) / 2 

Commuter                        (Pi

E

j

+P

j

Ei) / 2 (Ii+I

j

) / 2 

 Other,Casino Pi 

P

j 

( Ii + I

j 

) / 2 

The Business formulation consists of a product of employment in the origin zone, employment in 

the destination zone, and the average per capita income of the two zones. Since business trips are 

usually made between places of work, the presence of employment in the formulation is 

reasonable. The Commuter formulation consists of all socioeconomic factors; this is because 

commuter trips are between homes and places of work, which are closely related to population 

and employment. The formulation for Casino and Other consists of a product of population in the 

origin zone, population in the destination zone and the average per capita income of the two 

zones. Casino and Other trips encompass many types of trips, but the majority is home-based and 

thus, greater volumes of trips are expected from zones from higher population and income 

B.2.2 TRAVEL UTILITY

Estimates of travel utility for a transportation network are generated as a function of generalized 

cost (GC), as shown in Equation 2: 

Equation 2: 

U

ijp = f(GCijp) 

 Where, 

 GC

ijp

 = Generalized Cost of travel between zones i and j for trip purpose p

Because the generalized cost variable is used to estimate the impact of improvements in the 

transportation system on the overall level of trip making, it needs to incorporate all the key modal 

attributes that affect an individual’s decision to make trips. For the public modes (i.e., rail, bus and 

air), the generalized cost of travel includes all aspects of travel time (access, egress, in-vehicle 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-3

times), travel cost (fares, tolls, parking charges), schedule convenience (frequency of service, 

convenience of arrival/departure times) and reliability. 

The generalized cost of travel is typically defined in travel time (i.e., minutes) rather than dollars. 

Costs are converted to time by applying appropriate conversion factors, as shown in Equation 3. 

The generalized cost (GC) of travel between zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p is 

calculated as follows: 

Equation 3: 

pm

pm mji

mp ijm mji

mp

mp

ijmp

ijmp ijm VOT

VOR OTP

VOT F C

VOF OH

+

VOT

TC

GC = TT

exp( )

 

 Where, 

TT

ijm

 = Travel Time between zones i and j for mode m (in-vehicle time + station 

wait time + connection wait time + access/egress time + interchange 

penalty), with waiting, connect and access/egress time multiplied by a 

factor (greater than 1) to account for the additional disutility felt by 

travelers for these activities 

 TC

ijmp

 = Travel Cost between zones i and j for mode m and trip purpose p (fare + 

access/egress cost for public modes, operating costs for auto) 

 VOT mp = Value of Time for mode m and trip purpose p

 VOF mp = Value of Frequency for mode m and trip purpose p

 VOR mp = Value of Reliability for mode m and trip purpose p

 F

ijm = Frequency in departures per week between zones i and j for mode m

 C

ijm

 = Convenience factor of schedule times for travel between zones i and j for 

mode m

 OTP

ijm = On-time performance for travel between zones i and j for mode m

 OH = Operating hours per week 

Station wait time is the time spent at the station before departure and after arrival. Air travel 

generally has higher wait times because of security procedures at the airport, baggage checking, 

and the difficulties of loading a plane. Air trips were assigned wait times of 45 minutes while rail 

trips were assigned wait times of 30 minutes and bus trips were assigned wait times of 20 

minutes. On trips with connections, there would be additional wait times incurred at the 

connecting station. Wait times are weighted higher than in-vehicle time in the generalized cost 

formula to reflect their higher disutility as found from previous studies. Wait times are weighted 

70 percent higher than in-vehicle time for Business trips and 90 percent higher for Commuter, 

Casino and Other trips. 

Similarly, access/egress time has a higher disutility than in-vehicle time. Access time tends to be 

more stressful for the traveler than in-vehicle time because of the uncertainty created by trying to 

catch the flight or train. Based on previous work, access time is weighted 30 percent higher than 

in-vehicle time for air travel and 80 percent higher for rail and bus travel. 

TEMS has found from past studies that the physical act of transferring trains (or buses or planes) 

has a negative impact beyond the times involved. To account for this disutility, interchanges are 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-4

penalized time equivalents. For both air and rail travel, each interchange for a trip results in 40 

minutes being added to the Business generalized cost and 30 minutes being added to the 

Commuter, Casino and Other generalized cost. For bus travel, the interchange penalties are 20 

minutes and 15 minutes for Business and Other, respectively. 

The third term in the generalized cost function converts the frequency attribute into time units. 

Operating hours divided by frequency is a measure of the headway or time between departures. 

Tradeoffs are made in the stated preference surveys resulting in the value of frequencies on this 

measure. Although there may appear to some double counting because the station wait time in the 

first term of the generalized cost function is included in this headway measure, it is not the 

headway time itself that is being added to the generalized cost. The third term represents the 

impact of perceived frequency valuations on generalized cost. TEMS has found it very convenient 

to measure this impact as a function of the headway. 

The fourth term of the generalized cost function is a measure of the value placed on reliability of 

the mode. Reliability statistics in the form of on-time performance (i.e., the fraction of trips 

considered to be on time) were obtained for the rail and air modes only. The negative exponential 

form of the reliability term implies that improvements from low levels of reliability have slightly 

higher impacts than similar improvements from higher levels of reliability. 

B.2.3 CALIBRATION OF THE TOTAL DEMAND MODEL

In order to calibrate the Total Demand Model, the coefficients are estimated using linear 

regression techniques. Equation 1, the equation for the Total Demand Model, is transformed by 

taking the natural logarithm of both sides, as shown in Equation 4: 

Equation 4: 

 )log( )()log( ijp 10 pp ijp 2 Uijpp T    SE  

Equation 4 provides the linear specification of the model necessary for regression analysis. 

The segmentation of the database by trip purpose and trip length resulted in four sets of models. 

Trips that would cover more than 170 miles are considered long-distance trips. Some previous 

studies show the traveler’s behaviors are different, but in this study, as shown in the following 

exhibits, the difference of long distance trips and short distance trips are small. The t-test of the 

long distance and short distance model also shows the coefficients are not significantly different. 

However, two models calibrated for long and short distance are more accurate to describe the 

relationship between trips and socioeconomic variables and utilities than one model without 

distance differentiation does. It should be noted that most of trips in our study area fall into the 

short distance range since the distance between Minneapolis and Duluth is only about 150 miles. 

The long distance trips to casino are less than 1 percent of total casino trips, so only the short 

distance casino trips model are calibrated. The results of the calibration for the Total Demand 

Models are displayed in Exhibit B-1. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-5

Exhibit B-1: Total Demand Model Coefficients (1)

Long-Distance Trips (trip length greater than 170 miles) 

Business log(Tij) = -25.17+ 1.08 Uij + 1.12 log(SEij) R2

=0.94 

 (45) (132) 

 where ( ) *89.059.2 UPublic *01.0 GCAuto

ij eLogU e     for Business 

Commuter log(Tij) = -18.59+ 0.99 Uij + 0.75 log(SEij) R2

=0.93 

 (127) (75) 

 where ( ) *99.046.1 UPublic *02.0 GCAuto

ij eLogU e     for Commuter 

Other log(Tij) = - 17.45 + 1.02 Uij + 0.83 log(SEij) R2

=0.94 

 (104) (91) 

 where ( ) *97.024.5 *01.0 UPublic GCAuto

ij eLogU e    

Short-Distance Trips (trip length less than 170 miles) 

Business log(Tij) = -27.75+ 1.17 Uij + 1.15 log(SEij) R2

=0.70 

 (30) (60) 

 where ( ) *93.056.1 UPublic *01.0 GCAuto

ij eLogU e     for Business 

Commuter log(Tij) = -10.67+ 0.99 Uij + 0.53 log(SEij) R2

=0.65 

 (57) (26) 

 where ( ) *98.057.1 *03.0 UPublic GCAuto

ij eLogU e     for Commuter 

Casino log(Tij) = 0.68+ 1.07 Uij + 0.57 log(SEij) R2

=0.94 

 (402) (129) 

 where ( ) *88.032.2 *04.0 UPublic GCAuto

ij eLogU e     for Casino 

Other log(Tij) = - 20.52 + 1.15 Uij + 0.54 log(SEij) R2

=0.55 

 (37) (29) 

 where ( ) *95.007.7 UPublic *02.0 GCAuto

Total eLogU e     for Other 

(1)t-statistics are given in parentheses.

In evaluating the validity of a statistical calibration, there are two key statistical measures: tstatistics and R2

. The t-statistics are a measure of the significance of the model’s coefficients; 

values of 2 and above are considered “good” and imply that the variable has significant 

explanatory power in estimating the level of trips. The R2

 is a statistical measure of the “goodness 

of fit” of the model to the data; any data point that deviates from the model will reduce this 

measure. It has a range from 0 to a perfect 1, with 0.4 and above considered “good” for large data 

sets. 

Based on these two measures, the total demand calibrations are good. The t-statistics are very 

high, aided by the large size of the Duluth-Minneapolis data set. The R2

 values imply very good fits 

of the equations to the data. 

As shown in Exhibit 1, the average socioeconomic elasticity values for the Total Demand Model is 

0.69 for short distance trips and 0.90 for long distance trips, meaning that each one percent 

growth in the socioeconomic term generates approximately a 0.69 percent growth in short 

distance trips and a 0.90 percent growth in long distance trips. 

The coefficient on the utility term is not exactly elasticity, but it can be used as an approximation. 

Thus, the average utility elasticity of the transportation system or network is almost same for 

short-distance trips and long-distance trips, with each one percent improvement in network utility 

or quality as measured by generalized cost (i.e., travel times or costs) generating approximately a 

1.03 percent increase for long-distance trips and a 1.10 percent increase for short trips. The 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-6

slightly higher elasticity on short trips is partly a result of the scale of the generalized costs. For 

short trips, a 30-minute improvement would be more meaningful than the same time 

improvement on long-distance trips, reflecting in the higher elasticity on the short-distance 

model. 

The positive intercepts for casino trips means as a special generator zone, the trips to Hinckley 

casino cannot be fully explained by socioeconomic and network utilities. That is to say with the 

similar level of population, income or employment and similar transportation costs; Hinckley will 

generate more trips than common zones. This is also why Hinckley and casino should be treated 

differently than other zones in this study. 

B.2.4 INCREMENTAL FORM OF THE TOTAL DEMAND MODEL

The calibrated Total Demand Models could be used to estimate the total travel market for any 

zone pair using the population, employment, per capita income, and the total utility of all the 

modes. However, there would be significant differences between estimated and observed levels of 

trip making for many zone pairs despite the good fit of the models to the data. To preserve the 

unique travel patterns contained in the base data, the incremental approach or “pivot point” 

method is used for forecasting. In the incremental approach, the base travel data assembled in the 

database are used as pivot points, and forecasts are made by applying trends to the base data. 

The total demand equation as described in Equation 1 can be rewritten into the following 

incremental form that can be used for forecasting (Equation 5): 

Equation 5: 

 

Where, 

 Tf

ijp = Number of Trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast year f

Tf

ijp = Number of Trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p in base year b

 SEf

ijp

 = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast 

year f

 SEb

ijp 

= Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p in base year b

 Uf

ijp = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p

in forecast year f

Ub

ijp = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p

in base year b 

In the incremental form, the constant term disappears and only the elasticities are important. 

(exp( )) 2

1

b

ijp

f

b ijpp

ijp

f

ijp

b

ijp

f

ijp U U

SE

SE

T

T p

 













  


NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-7

B.3 HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT MODEL

The role of the Hierarchical Modal Split Model is to estimate relative modal shares, given the Total 

Demand Model estimate of the total market. The relative modal shares are derived by comparing 

the relative levels of service offered by each of the travel modes. The COMPASSTM Hierarchical 

Modal Split Model uses a nested logit structure, which has been adapted to model the intercity 

modal choices available in the study area. As shown in Exhibit B-2, three levels of binary choice 

are calibrated. 

Exhibit B-2: Hierarchical Structure of the Modal Split Model 

The main feature of the Hierarchical Modal Split Model structure is the increasing commonality of 

travel characteristics as the structure descends. The first level of the hierarchy separates private 

auto travel – with its spontaneous frequency, low access/egress times, low costs and highly 

personalized characteristics – from the public modes. The second level of the structure separates 

air – the fastest, most expensive and perhaps most frequent and comfortable public mode – from 

the rail and bus surface modes. The lowest level of the hierarchy separates rail, a potentially faster, 

more reliable, and more comfortable mode, from the bus mode. 

B.3.1 FORM OF THE HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT MODEL

The modal split models used by TEMS derived from the standard nested logit model. Exhibit B-3 

shows a typical two-level standard nested model. In the nested model shown in Exhibit B-3, there 

are five travel modes that are grouped into two composite modes, namely, Composite Mode 1 and 

Composite Mode 2. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-8

Exhibit B-3: A Typical Standard Nested Logit Model 

Each travel mode in the above model has a utility function of U

j

, j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To assess modal 

split behavior, the logsum utility function, which is derived from travel utility theory, has been 

adopted for the composite modes in the model. As the modal split hierarchy ascends, the logsum 

utility values are derived by combining the utility of lower-level modes. The composite utility is 

calculated by 

log exp( ) k kk

k

N NN i

i N

U U      (1) 

where 

 Nk

 is composite mode k in the modal split model, 

 i is the travel mode in each nest, 

 Ui

 is the utility of each travel mode in the nest, 

  is the nesting coefficient. 

The probability that composite mode k is chosen by a traveler is given by 

exp( / ) ( ) exp( / )

k

i

i

N

k

N

N N

U

P N

U



 



 (2) 

Total 

Demand

Composite 

Mode 1 

Composite 

Mode 2 

Mode 1-1 Mode 1-2 Mode 1-3 Mode 2-1 Mode 2-2 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-9

The probability of mode i in composite mode k being chosen is 

exp( ) ( ) exp( ) k

k

i

N

j

j N

U P i

U



 



 (3) 

A key feature of these models is a use of utility. Typically in transportation modeling, the utility of 

travel between zones i and j by mode m for purpose p is a function of all the components of travel 

time, travel cost, terminal wait time and cost, parking cost, etc. This is measured by generalized 

cost developed for each origin-destination zone pair on a mode and purpose basis. In the model 

application, the utility for each mode is estimated by calibrating a utility function against the 

revealed base year mode choice and generalized cost. 

Using logsum functions, the generalized cost is then transformed into a composite utility for the 

composite mode (e.g. Surface and Public in Exhibit 2). This is then used at the next level of the 

hierarchy to compare the next most similar mode choice (e.g. in Exhibit B-2, Surface is compared 

with Air mode). 

B.3.2 DEGENERATE MODAL SPLIT MODEL 

For the purpose of Duluth-Minneapolis Corridor Study (and other intercity high speed rail 

projects), TEMS has adopted a special case of the standard logit model, the degenerate nested 

logit model [Louviere, et.al., 2000]. This is because in modeling travel choice, TEMS has followed a 

hierarchy in which like modes are compared first, and then with gradually more disparate modes 

as progress is made up the hierarchy, this method provides the most robust and statistically valid 

structure. This means however, that there are singles modes being introduced at each level of the 

hierarchy and that at each level the composite utility of two modes combined at the lower level 

(e.g. the utility of Surface mode combined from Rail and Bus modes) is compared with the 

generalized cost of a single mode (e.g. Air mode). It is the fact that the utilities of the two modes 

being compared are measured by different scales that creates the term degenerate model. The 

result of this process is that the nesting coefficient is subsumed into the hierarchy and effectively 

cancels out in the calculation. That is why TEMS set  to 1 when using this form of the model in 

COMPASSTM . 

Take the three-level hierarchy shown in Exhibit 2 for example, the utilities for the modes of Rail 

and Bus in the composite Surface mode are 

U G Rail Rail Rail Rail     C (4) 

U GC Bus Bus Bus   (5) 

The utility for the composite Surface mode is 

log[exp( )]exp() USurface  Surface   Surface URail  UBus (6) 

The utility for the Air mode is 

log[exp( )] U G Air Air      C G Air Air Air C (7) 

Then the mode choice model between Surface and Air modes are 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-10

exp( / ) ( ) exp( / ) exp( / )

Surface

Surface Air

U

P Surface U U



   

 (8) 

It can be seen in equation (7) that U GC Air Air Air   , the term of exp( / ) UAir  in equation (8) 

reduces to exp( )  Air Air GC , thus that the nesting coefficient  is canceled out in the single mode 

nest of the hierarchy. As a result,  loses its statistical meaning in the nested logit hierarchy, and 

leads to the degenerate form of the nested logit model, where  is set to 1 

B.3.3 CALIBRATION OF THE HIERARCHICAL MODAL SPLIT MODEL

Working from the bottom of the hierarchy up to the top, the first analysis is that of the rail mode 

versus the bus mode. As shown in Exhibit B-4, the model was effectively calibrated for the four 

(three for long distance trip) trip purposes and the two trip lengths, with reasonable parameters 

and R2

 and t values. All the coefficients have the correct signs such that demand increases or 

decreases in the correct direction as travel times or costs are increased or decreased, and all the 

coefficients appear to be reasonable in terms of the size of their impact. 

Exhibit B-4: Rail versus Bus Modal Split Model Coefficients (1) 

Long-Distance Trips (trip length greater than 170 miles) 

Business log(PRail/PBus) = 2.95 - 0.01 GCRail + 0.01GCBus R2=0.70 

 (33) (25) 

Commuter log(PRail/PBus) = 4.10 - 0.02 GCRail +0.02 GCBus R2=0.93 

 (118) (88) 

Other log(PRail/PBus) = 2.52 -0.01 GCRail +0.01GCBus R2=0.90 

 (45) (72) 

Short-Distance Trips (trip length less than 170 miles) 

Business log(PRail/PBus) = 3.39 - 0.01 GCRail + 0.01GCBus R2=0.92 

 (154) (83) 

Commuter log(PRail/PBus) = 3.60 - 0.03 GCRail +0.04 GCBus R2=0.96 

 (361) (300) 

Casino log(PRail/PBus) = -1.41 - 0.01 GCRail + 0.01 GCBus R2=0.88 

 (20) (22) 

Other log(PRail/PBus) = 2.49 - 0.02 GCRail + 0.03GCBus R2=0.93 

 (286) (199) 

(1) t-statistics are given in parentheses.

The constant term in each equation indicates the degree of bias towards one mode or the other. 

For example, if the constant term is positive, there is a bias towards rail travel that is not 

explained by the variables (e.g., times, costs, frequencies, reliability) used to model the modes. In 

considering the bias it is important to recognize that small values indicate little or no bias, and 

that small values have error ranges that include both positive and negative values. However, large 

biases may well reflect strong feelings to a modal option due to its innate character or network 

structure. The terms of Business Commuter and Other trips are positive in all the market 

segments; this means that there is a bias towards rail travel. The constant term of casino is 

negative. It is because, in the base rail network, the Hinckley casino is connected by a shuttle bus 

service and rail service (frequency is 2 trains/day and speed is 79mph) is not attractive to gambler 

and tourists. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-11

For the second level of the hierarchy, the analysis is of the surface modes (i.e., rail and bus) versus 

air. Accordingly, the utility of the surface modes is obtained by deriving the logsum of the utilities 

of rail and bus. As shown in Exhibit B-5, the model calibrations for both trip purposes are all 

statistically significant, with good R2

 and t values and reasonable parameters. As indicated by the 

constant terms, there are biases towards the air mode for both long and short distant trips. The 

biases for short distant trips are relatively smaller and this is understandable since travelers for 

long distance trips prefer air travel to travelers for short distance trips. 

Exhibit B-5: Surface versus Air Modal Split Model Coefficients (1) 

Long-Distance Trips (trip length greater than 170 miles) 

Business log(PSurf/PAir) = -0.30 + 0.99USurf + 0.01GCAir R2

=0.95 

 (2973) (11) 

 where ( ) *01.095.2 GCRail *01.0 GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Business 

Commuter log(PSurf/PAir) = -8.83 + 0.99USurf + 0.01 GCAir R2

=0.92 

 (101) (44) 

 where ( ) *02.010.4 *02.0 GCRail GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Commuter 

Other log(PSurf/PAir) = -2.12+ 0.99 USurf + 0.03 GCAir R2

=0.96 

 (5892) (169) 

 where ( ) *01.052.2 GCRail *01.0 GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Other

Short-Distance Trips (trip length less than 170 miles) 

Business log(PSurf/PAir) = -0.20 + 0.98USurf + 0.01 GCAir R2

=0.88 

 (77) (17) 

 where ( ) *01.039.3 *01.0 GCRail GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Business 

Commuter log(PSurf/PAir) = -8.23 + 0.99USurf + 0.03 GCAir R2

=0.95 

 (227) (110) 

 where ( ) *03.060.3 GCRail *04.0 GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Commuter 

Casino log(PSurf/PAir) = -6.23 + 0.98USurf + 0.02 GCAir R2

=0.94 

 (10) (4) 

 where ( ) *01.041.1 GCRail *01.0 GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Casino 

Other log(PSurf/PAir) = -1.99 + 0.96 USurf + 0.01 GCAir R2

=0.92 

 (149) (42) 

 where ( ) *02.049.2 *03.0 GCRail GCBus

Surface U eLog e     for Other 

 (1)t-statistics are given in parentheses.

The analysis for the top level of the hierarchy is of auto versus the public modes. The utility of the 

public modes is obtained by deriving the logsum of the utilities of the air, rail and bus modes. 

As shown in Exhibit B-6, the model calibrations for both trip purposes are all statistically 

significant, with good R2

 and t values and reasonable parameters in most cases. The constant 

terms show that Business, Commuter trips have a bias toward for public mode, while Casino and 

Other trips prefer auto mode. A reason for why the R2

 value for the short-distance model is a bit 

lower than in the rest of the model is due to the fact that local transit trips are not included in the 

public trip database, causing some of the observations to deviate significantly from the model 

equation. 
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-12

Exhibit B-6: Public versus Auto Hierarchical Modal Split Model Coefficients (1)

Long-Distance Trips (trip length greater than 170 miles) 

Business log(PPub/PAuto) = 2.59 + 0.89 UPub + 0.01 GCAuto R2

=0.95 

(298) (28) 

where ( ) *99.030.0 Surface *01.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Commuter log(PPub/PAuto) = 1.46 + 0.99 UPub + 0.02 GCAuto R2

=0.94 

(110) (44) 

where ( ) *99.083.8 Surface *01.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Other log(PPub/PAuto) = -5.24 + 0.97 UPub+ 0.01 GCAuto R2

=0.96 

(1265) (47) 

where ( ) *99.012.2 Surface *03.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Short-Distance Trips (trip length less than 170 miles) 

Business log(PPub/PAuto) = 1.56+ 0.93 UPub + 0.01 GCAuto R2

=0.94 

(2652) (32) 

where ( ) *98.020.0 Surface *01.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Commuter log(PPub/PAuto) = 1.57+ 0.98 UPub + 0.03 GCAuto R2

=0.85 

(119) (45) 

where ( ) *99.023.8 Surface *03.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Casino log(PPub/PAuto) = -2.32 + 0.88 UPub + 0.04 GCAuto R2

=0.86 

(303) (2) 

where ( ) *98.023.6 Surface *02.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

Other log(PPub/PAuto) = -7.07 + 0.95 UPub + 0.02 GCAuto R2

=0.84 

(1212) (45) 

where ( ) *96.099.1 Surface *01.0 GCAir U

Public U eLog e    

 (1)t-statistics are given in parentheses. 

B.4 INCREMENTAL FORM OF THE MODAL SPLIT MODEL

Using the same reasoning as previously described, the modal split models are applied 

incrementally to the base data rather than imposing the model estimated modal shares. Different 

regions of the corridor may have certain biases toward one form of travel over another and these 

differences cannot be captured with a single model for the entire system. Using the “pivot point” 

method, many of these differences can be retained. To apply the modal split models incrementally, 

the following reformulation of the hierarchical modal split models is used (Equation 6): 

Equation 6:

( () )

)(

)( b

B f

B

b

B f GC A GC GC GC

b

B

b

A

f

B

f

A

e

P

P

P

P

     
NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM:

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS)

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page B-13

For hierarchical modal split models that involve composite utilities instead of generalized costs, 

the composite utilities would be used in the above formula in place of generalized costs. Once 

again, the constant term is not used and the drivers for modal shifts are changed in generalized 

cost from base conditions. 

Another consequence of the pivot point method is that it prevents possible extreme modal 

changes from current trip-making levels as a result of the calibrated modal split model, thus that 

avoid over- or under- estimating future demand for each mode. 

B.5 REFERENCES

[Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1985], M.E. Ben-Akiva and S.R. Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis: 

Theory and Application to Travel Demand, MIT Press, 1985. 

[Cascetta, 1996], E. Cascetta, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on the the Theory 

of Road Traffic Flow (Lyon, France),1996. 

[Daly, A, 1987], A. Daly, Estimating “tree” logit models. Transportation Research B, 21(4):251-

268, 1987. 

[Daly, A., et.al., 2004], A. Daly, J. Fox and J.G.Tuinenga, Pivot-Point Procedures in Practical Travel 

Demand Forecasting, RAND Europe, 2005 

[Domenich and McFadden, 1975], T.A. Domenich and D. McFadden, Urban Travel Demand: A 

behavioral analysis, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975. 

[Garling et.al., 1998], T. Garling, T. Laitila, and K. Westin, Theoretical Foundations of Travel 

Choice Modeling, 1998. 

[Hensher and Johnson, 1981], D.A. Hensher and L.W. Johnson, Applied discrete choice modelling.

Croom Helm, London, 1981 

[Horowitz, et.al., 1986], J.L. Horowitz, F.S. Koppelman, and S.R. Lerman, A self-instructing course 

in disaggregate mode choice modeling, Technology Sharing Program, USDOT, 1986. 

[Koppelman, 1975], F.S. Koppelman, Travel Prediction with Models of Individual Choice Behavior, 

PhD Submittal, Massachusetts Institute, 1975. 

[Louviere, et.al., 2000], J.J.Louviere, D.A.Hensher, and J.D.Swait, Stated Choice Methods: Analysis 

and Application, Cambridge, 2000 

[Luce and Suppes, 1965], R.D. Luce and P. Suppes, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, 1965. 

[Rogers et al., 1970], K.G. Rogers, G.M. Townsend and A.E. Metcalf, Planning for the work. Journey 

–a generalized explanation of modal choice, Report C67, Reading, 1970. 

[Wilson, 1967], A.G. Wilson, A Statistical Theory of Spatial Distribution models, Transport 

Research, Vol. 1, 1967. 

[Quarmby, 1967], D. Quarmby, Choice of Travel Mode for the Journey to Work: Some Findings, 

Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1967. 

[Yai, et.al., 1997], T. Yai, S. Iwakura, and S. Morichi, Multinominal probit with structured 

covariance for route choice behavior, Transportation Research B, 31(3):195-208, 1997. 
APPENDIX D 

BRIDGE REHABILITATION DESCRIPTION 

 

- 

Quandel Consultants, LLC 

November 29, 2011 Page 1 

NLX High Speed Passenger Rail Project from Minneapolis to Duluth 

Railroad Bridge Rehabilitation: Open Deck to Ballasted Deck 

Purpose: 

Numerous open deck bridges are in use along this rail corridor, typically where the railroad spans 

waterways. Open decks are free draining and therefore are not preferred for bridges spanning 

roadways. The open deck bridges located along the railroad corridor for this project are programmed 

for rehabilitation to ballasted deck bridges. A ballasted deck bridge provides a better riding surface and 

improves maintenance activities by allowing a continuous path for maintenance-of-way equipment. 

Rehabilitation Work: 

The existing bridges requiring rehabilitation on this project contain open decks on steel deck plate 

girders or steel rolled beams. Conversion of an open deck to ballasted deck structure requires the 

removal of the deck components of the bridge: rail, ties, tie plates, tie fasteners, tie-girder clips. This 

work is typically done from above by railroad track personnel from equipment that rides along the 

existing rail. 

Once the existing deck is removed, the ballasted deck is placed. The ballasted deck contains a ballast 

retainer which can be constructed from precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete or steel. After the 

ballast retainer is fastened to the existing superstructure, the ballast is added followed by the ties and 

rail. This work is typically performed from above using track-mounted cranes and other equipment that 

moves along the existing rails. The open deck removal and ballasted deck replacement are often done 

simultaneously. 

Open Deck Components

To be removed. 
Quandel Consultants, LLC 

November 29, 2011 Page 2 

Other work that may be included with a rehabilitation project of this sort includes: 

• cleaning and recoating steel structure components 

• bearing replacement 

• pointing of abutment and/or piers 

Potential Environmental Impacts: 

Open Deck Rehabilitation 

The potential for environmental impact for this work is low. The work is typically completed from on 

top of the bridge without introducing any impacts to the waterway. Debris containment measures may 

be required to ensure construction materials do not fall into the waterway. 

Cleaning and Painting 

Potential for environmental impact is relatively high, but mitigation measures reduce the probability 

significantly. The contractor will be required to propose a containment plan, environmental monitoring 

plan, waste management plan and contingency plan in order to avoid contamination of the waterway 

from lead-based paint materials. Typical containment systems include tarps, negative pressure, 

barges/pontoons/small floats, and vacuum equipment. Staging for this work may be located below the 

bridge on the waterway banks or in the waterway channel. The staging may cause minor short-term 

impacts to the waterway flow, but no long-term impacts once work is completed. 

Bearing Replacement 

The potential for environmental impact is low. Bearing replacement requires jacking the existing 

superstructure off of the bearing surface on the substructure. If this work is performed, the staging for 

the jacking device will be located below the bridge on the waterway banks or potentially in the 

waterway channel depending on the span length. The work may cause minor short-term impacts to the 

waterway flow, but no long-term impacts once work is completed. 
Quandel Consultants, LLC 

November 29, 2011 Page 3 

Pointing of Abutments and/or Piers 

The potential for environment impact is low. Construction staging for this work may be located near the 

bridge site or within waterway bank slopes. This staging may have minor short-term impact to the 

waterway flow, but no long-term impacts once work is completed. 

 

APPENDIX E 

NLX CORRIDOR REFINEMENT

CITY OF BRAHAM, MN
 
NLX Environmental Assessment E - 1 February 2013 

Exhibit E.1 Refinement of NLX Corridor through Braham, MN 
NLX Environmental Assessment E - 2 February 2013 

Exhibit E.2 NLX Corridor through Braham, MN 

E 
NLX Environmental Assessment E - 3 February 2013 

SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

BRAHAM, MINNESOTA

April 23, 2012 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger rail 

project was held on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at Braham High School, Braham, 

Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

The City of Braham managed meeting notification via the City website, City message sign, 

newsletter, and posted notices at public facilities and businesses. 

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and answer 

questions: 

NLX Alliance: Bob Manzoline, NLX Exec Dir

Frank Pafko, MnDOT 

Julie Carr, MnDOT 

Dave Christianson, MnDOT 

Jeanne Witzig, KHA

Elected Officials: Sally Hoy, Braham City Administrator

Patricia Carlson, Braham Mayor

Larry Southerland, Isanti County Commissioner

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Nancy Frick

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all persons 

entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 74 people signed in. 
NLX Environmental Assessment E - 4 February 2013 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and no presentation. Attendees viewed informational 

exhibits (presentation boards, aerial photos, and handouts) and engaged in one-on-one or small 

group discussions with the project staff. 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were encouraged 

to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by mail. 

Written Comments

A total of four comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Support for project

• Support for station in Braham. 

• NLX would enhance livability and economic development opportunities for Braham area. 

NLX would help attract residents with higher paying jobs in the Twin Cities.

• Project construction would provide jobs. 

• Support for public funding of NLX. 

Project Concerns

• Concerns about safety near the corridor (flying rocks, etc.), specifically children’s safety 

noted by a day care provider adjacent to the corridor. 

• Secondary property impacts due to side slopes. 

• Impacts to City utilities, park, bank, and residences. 

• Concerns about rail crossings. 

• Request for slower speed.

• Concerns about increased ground vibration. 

• Should have held a meeting with a presentation and opened the floor for questions. 

• Soils inadequate to support the project safely.
APPENDIX F 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

• FRA – USFWS Correspondence

• Table F-1: Minnesota Species List

• Table F-2: Wisconsin Species List

• Wisconsin Species Descriptions

NLX Environmental Assessment F - 1 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 2 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 3 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 4 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 5 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 6 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 7 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 8 February 2013 
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 9 February 2013 

Table F-1. Minnesota Natural Heritage Database Review of the NLX Corridor

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

STATE 

PROTECTION 

STATUS

Animal Assemblage

N/A Bat Concentration N/A

N/A Colonial Waterbird Nesting Site N/A

Invertebrate Animal

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket THR

Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe THR

Cicindela lepida Little White Tiger Beetle THR

Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback THR

Elliptio dilatata Spike SPC

Hesperia leonardus leonardus Leonard's Skipper SPC

Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter SPC

Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell SPC

Ligumia recta Black Sandshell SPC

Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut SPC

Pleurobema coccineum Round Pigtoe THR

Vascular Plant

Aristida tuberculosa Sea-beach Needlegrass SPC

Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed Grapefern END

Botrychium rugulosum St. Lawrence Grapefern THR

Botrychium simplex Least Moonwort SPC

Cypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady's-slipper THR

Fimbristylis autumnalis Autumn Fimbristylis SPC

Hudsonia tomentosa Beach-heather SPC

Hydrocotyle americana American Water-pennywort SPC

Juncus marginatus Marginated Rush SPC

Najas gracillima Thread-like Naiad SPC

Oenothera rhombipetala Rhombic-petaled Evening Primrose SPC

Poa paludigena Bog Bluegrass THR

Potamogeton bicupulatus Snailseed Pondweed END

Potamogeton vaseyi Vasey's Pondweed SPC

Rotala ramosior Tooth-cup THR

Scleria triglomerata Tall Nut-rush END

Solidago sciaphila Cliff Goldenrod SPC

Triplasis purpurea Purple Sand-grass SPC

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock SPC

Viola lanceolata Lance-leaved Violet THR

Vertebrate Animal

Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon SPC

Clemmys insculpta Wood Turtle THR

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle THR

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon THR

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SPC

Heterodon nasicus Plains Hog-nosed Snake SPC

Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey SPC

Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey SPC

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike THR

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis SPC
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 10 February 2013 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

STATE 

PROTECTION 

STATUS

Percina evides Gilt Darter SPC

Perognathus flavescens Plains Pocket Mouse SPC

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Pipistrelle SPC

Pituophis catenifer Gophersnake SPC

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush SPC

Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS)

MCBS site with outstanding biodiversity significance (2 Locations)

MCBS site with high biodiversity significance (7 Locations)

MCBS site with moderate biodiversity significance (18 Locations)

MCBS site with below minimum biodiversity significance threshold (20 Locations)

THR = State Threatened, END = State Endangered, SPC = State Special Concern
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 11 February 2013 

Table F-2. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species found in proposed NLX 

corridor in Douglas County, Wisconsin, January 2010 

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The following species are known to occur in or near the corridor for the NLX Corridor. Specific 

list history information is given below.

 State 

Group Scientific Name Common Name Status * 

Bird Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper SC

 Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler SC

 Charadrius melodus Piping Plover END

 Sterna caspia Caspian Tern END 

 

Fish Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon SC

 Anguilla rostrata American Eel SC

Mammal Canis lupus Gray Wolf SC

 Martes Americana American Marten END

 

Plant Ranunculus gmelinii Small Yellow Water Crowfoot END

 Ranunculus cymbalaria Seaside Crowfoot THR

 Parnassia palustris Marsh Grass-of-parnassus THR

 Caltha natans Floating Marsh Marigold END

 Petasites sagittatus Arrow-leaved Sweet-coltsfoot THR

 Eleocharis nitida Slender Spike-rush END

 Sparganium glomeratum Northern Bur-reed THR

 Juncus vaseyi Vasey Rush SC

 Calamagrostis stricta Slim-stem Small-reedgrass SC

 Carex crawei Crawe Sedge SC

 Carex nigra Smooth Black Sedge SC

 Platanthera orbiculata Large Roundleaf Orchid SC

 Salix planifolia Tea-leaved Willow THR

Reptile Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle THR

Community Emergent Marsh 

 Northern Sedge Meadow 

* SC = Special Concern (those species about which some problem of abundance or distribution is 

suspected but not yet proved.); THR = Threatened; END = Endangered
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 12 February 2013 

1. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) – A bird of special concern in Wisconsin. It 

prefers tallgrass prairies, sedge meadows, unmowed alfalfa/timothy fields and scattered 

woodlands. The breeding season extends from early May through late September.

2. Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) – A bird of special concern in Wisconsin. It 

prefers mature, multi-layered pine stands, particularly jack pine, and occasionally in 

tamarack-pine stands with dense hardwood understory. The breeding season extends 

from mid-June through mid-July.

3. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) – A state endangered bird that prefers large 

isolated cobble beaches on the shores of Lake Michigan and Superior. Breeding occurs 

from early May through mid-September.

4. Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) – A state endangered bird that prefers undeveloped sand 

beaches and islands along the Great Lakes, typically on sandy or gravelly coastal 

islands. Breeding occurs from late may through mid-July.

5. Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) – A species of Special Concern in Wisconsin 

that prefers large rivers and lakes. It also lives in the shoal waters of the Great Lakes. 

Inland it shows a preference for the deepest mid-river areas and pools. Spawning 

occurs from late April through early June in cold, shallow, fast water.

6. American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) – A fish of special concern in Wisconsin. It prefers 

large streams, rivers and lakes with muddy bottoms and still waters. To reach these 

conditions the eel has to traverse a wide variety of less suitable habitat including swiftflowing waters with a wide variety of substrates. Spawning occurs in the Sargasso Sea.

7. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) – Also referred to as the timber wolf, and is listed as special 

concern in Wisconsin. Wolves are social animals that live in packs, and pack sizes in 

Wisconsin average up to six individuals with a few packs as large as ten animals. A wolf 

pack’s territory may cover 20-120 square miles. 

8. American Marten (Martes Americana) – A state endangered mammal that lives in 

mature, dense conifer forests, mixed conifer-hardwood, and hardwood dominated 

forests. American martens prefer forests with a mixture of conifers and deciduous trees 

including hemlock, white pine, yellow birch, maple, fir and spruce. Marten young are 

born in tree dens in late March and April and are weaned when about six weeks old. 

9. Small Yellow water Crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii) – A plant species that is 

endangered in Wisconsin. It is found in cold brooks and springs, shallow water and 

muddy shores of ditches, streams, and lakes. Blooming occurs late June through late 

August; fruiting occurs early July through early September. The optimal identification 

period for this species is late June through early September.

10. Seaside Crowfoot (Ranunculus cymbalaria) – A state threatened plant which is found in 

sandy or muddy shores and marshes, ditches and harbors along Lake Michigan, and 

salted roadsides near the City of Superior. Blooming occurs early June through late 

August; fruiting occurs late July through late August. The optimal identification period for 

this species is early June through late August.
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 13 February 2013 

11. Marsh Grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia palustris) – A state threatened plant found on 

clay bluffs on Lake Superior, cold northern fens, and gravel pits with calcareous sandy 

areas. Blooming occurs early August through early September; fruiting occurs 

throughout September. The optimal identification period for this species is throughout 

August.

12. Floating Marsh Marigold (Caltha natans) – A state endangered plant found in shallow 

water in creeks, pools, ditches, and sheltered lake margins. It typically roots in mud, silt, 

or clay, and spreads by rooting at the nodes. Blooming occurs throughout July; fruiting 

occurs throughout August. The optimal identification period for this species is early July 

through late August.

13. Arrow-leaved Sweet-coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus) – A state threatened plant that is 

found in cold marshes and swamp openings, often forming large clones. This species 

hybridizes with Petasites palmatus. Blooming occurs throughout May; fruiting occurs 

throughout June. The optimal identification period for this species is late may through 

late August.

14. Slender Spike-rush (Eleocharis nitida) – A state endangered plant that is found on wet 

exposed clay in ditches and openings in alder thickets and marshes, only near Superior. 

Blooming occurs throughout June; fruiting occurs late June through early September. 

The optimal identification period for this species is late June through late August.

15. Northern Bur-reed (Sparganium glomeratum) – A state threatened plant found in cold 

ditches and pools in sedge meadows, willow-alder thickets, and, occasionally, tamarack 

stands on the Lake Superior clay plain. Blooming occurs late June through late July; 

fruiting occurs late July through early September. The optimal identification period for 

this species is early July through early September.

16. Vasey Rush (Juncus vaseyi) – A plant of special concern in Wisconsin that is found in 

moist old fields, ditches, and moist prairies. It has been most commonly found on the 

Lake Superior clay plain. Blooming occurs early July through late August; fruiting occurs 

early August through early September. The optimal identification period for this species 

is early July through late August.

17. Slim-stem Small-reedgrass (Calamagrostis stricta) – A plant of special concern in 

Wisconsin. It is usually found on dry to moist dunes, barren, and dolomite or sandstone 

ledges, mostly near the Great Lakes, as well as calcareous wetlands. Blooming occurs 

throughout June; fruiting occurs early July through late August. The optimal 

identification period for this species is early July through late August.

18. Crawe Sedge (Carex crawei) – A plant of special concern in Wisconsin. It is found in 

calcareous wetlands and dolomitic pavement, often near Lake Michigan. It is also found 

in fens and moist calcareous prairies. Blooming occurs late in April through late May; 

fruiting occurs late May throughout late June. The optimal identification period for this 

species is throughout May.

19. Smooth Black Sedge (Carex nigra) – A plant of special concern in Wisconsin. It is 

found mainly on the edge of dry meadows and wet/sedge meadows and shrub-carr 

habitats. Fruiting occurs July through August. The optimal identification period for this 

species is early July through late August.
NLX Environmental Assessment F - 14 February 2013 

20. Large Roundleaf Orchid (Platanthera orbiculata) – A plant of special concern in 

Wisconsin which is found in moist hardwood or mixed conifer-hardwood forests. 

Blooming occurs late June through late July; fruiting occurs early July through late 

August. The optimal identification period for this species is late June through early 

August.

21. Tea-leaved Willow (Salix planifolia) – A state threatened plant that is found near Lake 

Superior, including bedrock shorelines in the Apostle Islands. Blooming occurs 

throughout May; fruiting occurs throughout June. The optimal identification period for 

this species is early June through early September.

22. Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) – A state threatened species that prefers clean 

rivers and streams with moderate to fast flows, adjacent riparian wetlands, and upland 

deciduous forests. The wood turtle becomes active in spring as soon as the ice is gone 

and air temperatures reach approximately 50 degrees in March or April. They can 

remain active into mid-October but have been seen breeding under the ice. Wood 

turtles can breed at any time of the year but primarily during the spring or fall. Nesting 

usually begins in late May and continues through June. They usually nest in sand or 

gravel, and usually very close to the water.

23. Emergent Marsh (Community) – An open marsh, lake, riverine or estuarine community 

with permanent standing water. Generally dominated by emergent macrophytes, in pure 

stands of single species or in various mixtures. Dominants include cattails, bulrushes, 

bur-reeds, giant reed, pickerel-weed, water plantain, arrowhead, spikerush, and wild 

rice. 

24. Northern Sedge Meadow (Community) – An open wetland community that is 

dominated by sedges and grasses and occurs primarily in northern Wisconsin. There 

are several common, fairly distinctive, subtypes: Tussock meadow; wire-leaved sedge 

meadow; and broad-leaved sedge meadow. Sphagnum mosses are either absent or 

they occur in scattered, discontinuous patches.
APPENDIX G 

WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

• Wetland Assessment Methodology 

• Figure G-1: NLX Project Area and Project Site Locations

NLX Environmental Assessment G - 1 February 2013 

Wetland Assessment Methodology 

Pre-Field Prepwork

An 11 X 17 flip book with match lines covering the entire rail line from Coon Rapids Junction (North 

Metro) to Boylston Junction (Wisconsin) was prepared. Information depicted was color aerial imagery,

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) mapping, hydric 

soils mapping (where available), roads, digitized location of existing railroad track, and 100-foot buffers 

to the west and east of the railroad tracks. Each page of the flip book covered an area of approximately 1 

mile by 1⁄2 mile. The scale of each page of the flip book was about 1” = 440’. The resolution of the aerial 

imagery was approximately 1-meter per pixel.

Field Methodology

Prior to field work, SRF Wetland Scientists drafted an abbreviated field methodology for estimating 

wetland extent along either sides of the tracks from the southern terminus to the northern terminus of 

proposed double track area, approximately 126 miles of trackage. This methodology was found to be a 

reasonable approach after review by Tim Fell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). The 

methodology was intended to: 

• Provide wetland data of sufficient resolution to compare the estimated wetland impacts of a 

scenario of “build to the east” or “build to the west” of the existing trackage. (Field work was 

conducted during project development to inform improvement location decisions.) 

• Provide wetland data of sufficient resolution for the Route 9 technical memorandum. 

• Guide decisions concerning opportunities for wetland impact avoidance and minimization. 

The methodology is not intended to provide a permitting level of wetland delineation and wetland impact 

calculation. An abbreviated field delineation will be completed during final design based on a method 

agreed to by the Army Corps and members of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) per the Minnesota 

Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).

The NWI and hydric soils mapping are useful as a guide to where wetlands may be; however, each effort 

has intrinsic inaccuracies. The field methodology for this project was designed to focus on landscapes in 

the Route 9 area where the NWI tends to fail frequently. Specifically, such landscapes are forested areas 

adjacent to waterways and partially drained agricultural land. In wetlands with abundant hydrology the 

NWI tends to be reasonably accurate because the wetness signatures are quite well defined. Wetlands on 

the drier side of the hydrology spectrum tend to have weak wetness signatures and are frequently 

overlooked by the NWI. The NWI generally doesn’t distinguish wetland forest from upland forest with 

much acuity in areas along streams and rivers, thus, it tends to overmap wetlands in this situation. In 

partially drained agricultural landscapes, the NWI may map a temporarily flooded wetland, e.g. PEMA, 

where one does not exist, or may not map one where it does exist. 

Our field methodology pre-selected 48 study sites along the entire project area that were:

• Relatively well distributed throughout the Route 9 area (including east of and west of the existing 

tracks).

• Focused on forested and drained agricultural landscapes (scrub-shrub and shallow emergent 

marshes were well-represented in the sample).

• Focused on potential wetlands with drier hydrological regimes. 

• Reasonably close to public road crossings of the tracks.
NLX Environmental Assessment G - 2 February 2013 

Fieldwork and Post-Field Data Processing

Fieldwork along the proposed rail improvements was conducted by two SRF Wetland Scientists on 

October 4-6, 2010. Cursory data collected at each Study Site included wetland type classification per 

Circular 39, Cowardin, and Eggers and Reed; predominant plant species observed, and a qualitative 

listing of the major wetland functions that each wetland expresses.

Wetland boundaries at each Study Site were estimated through a combination of sketching boundaries in 

the aerial imagery flip book and GPSing the edges of depressional areas dominated with hydrophytic 

vegetation. Sketched wetland boundaries were based on observed landscape characteristics and imagery 

phototones. Wetland edges sketched in the field were digitized as a shapefile. Sub-foot accurate Trimble 

GeoXH handheld GPS was used to record estimated edges of wetlands. GPSed points were uploaded and 

converted to shapefiles.

Figure G-1 shows a general map of the Route 9 area and locations of the 48 Study Sites throughout the 

length of the rail improvements. Table G-1 presents a summary of field data collected at each Study Site.

The wetland acreage mapped by NWI and WWI and the field-assessed acreage were tallied across all 

Study Sites. A ratio of the cumulative NWI and WWI-mapped wetland acreage to the cumulative fieldassessed acreage was calculated, with a cumulative ratio of <1 indicating that the remotely-sensed efforts 

undermap actual wetlands and a cumulative ratio of >1 indicates that the remotely-sensed methods 

overmap actual wetlands. 

The analysis indicated that the NWI/ WWI undermaps the extent of wetlands compared to field assessed 

wetlands. An analysis of all data (Minnesota and Wisconsin), including those Study Sites found in the 

field to be “Wetlands” and those found to be “Areas”, i.e. non-wetlands showed the NWI/ WWI to map 

approximately 55 % of actual wetlands on the east side of the tracks and about 74% of actual wetlands on 

the west side of the tracks. It should be noted that the wetlands we assessed in the field were generally 

those with a hydrologic modifier (per Cowardin) on the drier end of the wetness regime (e.g. modifiers of 

“A”, “B”, and “C”). The NWI is more likely to mis-map wetlands with drier hydrology modifiers than 

those with very wet modifiers (e.g. “F”, “G”, and “H”) because wetlands with relatively permanent 

surface waters generally have a strong aerial photography wetness signature and are more easily 

identifiable with a remote-sensing effort.

Based on this analysis, it was determined that actual wetland impacts might inflate NWI/WWI-based 

impacts by a factor of ~ 1.3. This is the factor used to produce the estimated impacts reported in the EA. 

The GIS-based location of the existing railroad tracks was digitized at a relatively coarse scale. As such, 

in places the digitized track was some meters west of or east of the actual track. We measured and 

quantified this discrepancy using GIS techniques to determine whether the digital track depiction was 

consistently to the east or west of the actual track. If the digital depiction of the track was consistently 

skewed to one side of the actual track, then wetland impact estimates might also be skewed - falsely 

favoring a “build to the east or west” scenario.

Our GIS measurement, described in detail in the “TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: NORTHERN LIGHTS 

EXPRESS (NORTHERN TWIN CITIES METRO TO DULUTH/ SUPERIOR); PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF 

WETLAND IMPACTS EAST AND WEST OF THE EXISTING TRACKAGE - DECEMBER 30, 2010”, found that on 

average, the digital track depiction is coincident with the actual track location, i.e. off kilter to the east as 

much as to the west over the entire length of trackage. It was concluded that the discrepancy between 

digitally mapped track and actual track location would not contribute significantly to a skewed wetland 
NLX Environmental Assessment G - 3 February 2013 

impact analysis comparing impacts associated with “build to the west” or “build to the east”. Nor would 

the discrepancy likely be of an order of magnitude so as to lead to different conclusions under the federal 

environmental process. 

Detailed results of the above-referenced analyses are presented in a “TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: 

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS (NORTHERN TWIN CITIES METRO TO DULUTH/ SUPERIOR); PRELIMINARY 

ANALYSIS OF WETLAND IMPACTS EAST AND WEST OF THE EXISTING TRACKAGE - DECEMBER 30, 2010”. 

Table G-1. Summary of Field Data 

Study 

Sites

Actual In-Field 

Cowardin 

Classification

NWI 

mapping per 

Cowardin 

Classification

Dominant Vegetation Mapbook Sheet, 

County, Twp, Rng, 

Sec

Main Functions

W-2 PFO/PEM/PSS PFO1B Phalaris arundinacea, 

Acer negundo, Urtica 

dioica, Cornus 

stolonifera

23, Anoka, 31N, 

24W, 14

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-3 PEM/PSS PEMCd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Urtica dioica, Cannabis 

sativa

29, Anoka, 32N, 

24W, 26

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-4 PEM PEMCd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Urtica dioica

29, Anoka, 32N, 

24W, 26

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-5 PEM/PSS PEMCd Phalaris arundinacea 35, Anoka, 32N, 

24W, 2

Wildlife

W-6 PEM PEMC Typha sp. 35, Anoka, 32N, 

24W, 2

Flood storage, 

wildlife, nutrient 

filtration

W-7 PEM/PSS PEMC Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp.

40, Anoka, 33N, 

24W, 24

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-8 PEM/PSS PEMCd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Phragmites 

australis, Salix interior

40, Anoka, 33N, 

24W, 24

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-9 PEM PEMC Typha sp., Carex 

lacustris, Larix laricina, 

Carex stricta

40, Anoka, 33N, 

24W, 24

Wildlife

W-10 PEM/PSS/PFO PEMC/PFO1B Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Populus 

tremuloides

48, Anoka, 34N, 

23W, 30

Wildlife

W-11 PEM/PFO PEM/SS1C Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Populus 

tremuloides

48, Anoka, 34N, 

23W, 30

Minimal 

functional value

W-12 PEM/PSS PEMC Phalaris arundinacea, 

Populus tremuloides

58, Isanti, 35N, 23W, 

20

Minimal 

functional value

W-13 PSS PEM/SS1B Cornus stolonifera 67, Isanti, 36N, 23, 

21

Wildlife

W-14 PEM Not Mapped Typha sp. 67, Isanti, 36N, 23, 

21

Ditch conveyance

W-15 PEM/PSS Not Mapped 

(PSS1/EMBgd 

is adjacent). 

Phalaris arundinacea, 

Acer negundo, 

Calamagrostis 

canadensis

76, Isanti, 37N, 23W, 

22

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-16 PEM/PSS/PFO2 PSS1/EMBg 

and PFO2Bg

Phalaris arundinacea, 

Larix laricina

83, Kanabec, 38N, 

23W, 35

Flood Storage, 

wildlife
NLX Environmental Assessment G - 4 February 2013 

Study 

Sites

Actual In-Field 

Cowardin 

Classification

NWI 

mapping per 

Cowardin 

Classification

Dominant Vegetation Mapbook Sheet, 

County, Twp, Rng, 

Sec

Main Functions

W-17 PEM/PSS PSS1/EMBgd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp.

83, Kanabec, 38N, 

23W, 35

Ditch conveyance

W-18 PEMA R2UBGH Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Potamogeton 

natans

88, Kanabec, 38N, 

23W, 12

Minimal flood 

storage

W-19 PEM (Fringe to 

River)

R2UBH Phalaris arundinacea, 

Spartina pectinata

88, Kanabec, 38N, 

23W, 13

Flood Storage, 

wildlife, 

recreation, fish 

habitat

W-20 PEM/PSS PEMB Phalaris arundinacea, 

Salix sp., Populus 

deltoides

99, Pine, 39N, 22W, 

8 

Wildlife

W-21 PEM PEMB Salix interior, Typha sp. 99, Pine, 39N, 22W, 

8

Wildlife

W-22 PEM PEMB Phalaris arundinacea, 

Populus deltoides

99, Pine, 39N, 22W,

5

Wildlife

*W- PEM/PSS PEMBgd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Salix sp., Phragmites 

australis

103, Pine, 40N, 22W, 

28

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-24 PEM/PFO PEMB Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Populus 

deltoides

106, Pine, 40N, 22W, 

21 &22

Minimal 

functional value

W-25 PEM/PFO 

(Some upland 

inclusions)

PEMB Phalaris arundinacea, 

Carex lacustris, Populus 

deltoides

106, Pine, 40N, 22W, 

21 &22

Wildlife 

W-26 PEM/PSS PEMBg Phalaris arundinacea, 

Typha sp., Salix sp.

114, Pine, 41N, 21W, 

34

Wildlife

W-27 PEM PEMBg Carex lacustris, Typha 

sp.

114, Pine, 41N, 21W, 

34

Wildlife

W-28 PEM Not Mapped Phalaris arundinacea 142, Pine, 43N, 19W, 

20

Minimal 

functional value

W-29 PEM/PSS PSS1C Phalaris arundinacea, 

Carex lacustris

142, Pine, 43N, 19W, 

20

Wildlife

W-30 PEM/PSS PEMCd Phalaris arundinacea, 

Salix sp.

153, Pine, 44N, 18W, 

19

Wildlife

W-31 PEM/PFO T3/W0H Phalaris arundinacea, 

Acer saccharinum

207, Douglas, 48N, 

14W, 33

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-32 PEM/PSS T3/S3K Calamagrostis 

Canadensis, Populus 

grandidentata, 

Epilobium coloratum

204, Douglas, 47N, 

14W, 8 

Wildlife

W-33 PEM T3/S3K Calamagrostis 

Canadensis, Populus 

grandidentata, 

Epilobium coloratum

204, Douglas, 47N, 

14W, 8

Wildlife

W-34 PEM/PSS T3/S3K Typha sp. 204, Douglas, 47N, 

14W, 17

Wildlife

*W- PEM/PSS T3K -- 203, Douglas, 47N, 

14W, 17

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

W-36 PEM/PSS/PFO S3KR and Phalaris arundinacea, 198, Douglas, 47N, Wildlife
NLX Environmental Assessment G - 5 February 2013 

Study 

Sites

Actual In-Field 

Cowardin 

Classification

NWI 

mapping per 

Cowardin 

Classification

Dominant Vegetation Mapbook Sheet, 

County, Twp, Rng, 

Sec

Main Functions

T3/S3KR Salix sp., Populus sp. 15W, 24

W-37 PEM U Phalaris arundinacea 198, Douglas, 47N, 

15W, 24

Minimal 

functional value

W-38 PEM U Phalaris arundinacea 198, Douglas, 47N, 

15W, 24

Wildlife

W-39 PEM U Carex lacustris 192, Douglas, 47N, 

15W, 33

Minimal 

functional value

W-40 PSS U Salix sp., 192, Douglas, 47N, 

15W, 32

Wildlife

W-41 PSS U Salix sp. 190, Douglas, 46N, 

15W, 6

Minimal 

functional value

W-43 PEM/PSS Not Mapped Carex lacustris, 

Phalaris arundinacea, 

Salix sp., Cornus 

stolonifera, 

Calamagrostis 

Canadensis

175, Pine, 46N, 17W, 

26 and 27

Minimal 

functional value

*W- PEM/PSS PSS1C and 

PEMC

Solidago sp. 175, Pine, 46N, 17W, 

26 and 27

Wildlife

W-45 PEM/PSS PSS1C Carex lacustria, Salix 

sp.

166, Pine, 45N, 17W, 

19 and 45N, 18W, 24

Flood Storage, 

wildlife

A-A Upland PFO1/EMB -- 23, Anoka, 31N, 

24W, 14

--

A-B Upland Not Mapped -- 182, Pine, 46N, 16W, 

16 and 17

--

A-C Upland Not Mapped -- 183, Pine, 46N, 16W, 

16

--

A-D Upland T3/8Kr -- 192, Douglas, 47N, 

15W, 33

--

A-E Upland PEMCd -- 35, Anoka, 32N, 

24W, 2

--

*Wetland observed from distance. 
NLX Environmental Assessment G - 6 February 2013 
APPENDIX H 

CORRESPONDENCE

• US Coast Guard 

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(Note Wisconsin Threatened and Endangered Species 

Correspondence also provided in Appendix F) 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service














From: Walczynski, Mike - Duluth, MN

To: Cynthia Warzecha

Cc: Schmitz, Clayton - Hinckley, MN

Subject: RE: Prime and Unique Farmlands

Date: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:42:11 AM

Hi Cynthia,

Pine County has only been partially soil mapped base on NRCS standards at this time. The Willow

River area is digitally available on the web which would show Prime and Statewide Important

farmland soils if they occur.

At this time the rest of the county cannot de defined as Prime or Statewide Important Farmlands.

If you have other questions please feel free to contact me.

Mike Walczynski 

Area Resource Soil Scientist

USDA-NRCS 

4915 Matterhorn Dr 

Duluth MN 55811

218-720-5308 ext 113 

mike.walczynski@mn.usda.gov

From: Cynthia Warzecha [mailto:cwarzecha@srfconsulting.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:49 PM

To: Hahn, Jennifer - Duluth, MN

Subject: Prime and Unique Farmlands

Jennifer,

Our firm is working on an Environmental Assessment for the Northern Lights Express (NLX) High

Speed Rail project form Minneapolis to Duluth.  Part of the environmental review includes

identification of prime and unique farmlands along the 155-mile corridor.  It is our understanding

that digital mapping of soil types is not yet available for Pine County.  Could you please clarify what

soil data are used to determine prime and unique farmlands for Pine County?

I have also left a phone message at the Pine County NRCS office.  Just wanted to let you know so

that efforts to respond are not duplicated.

Thank you!

Cynthia

Cynthia Warzecha

Senior Environmental Analyst

SRF Consulting Group
APPENDIX I 

CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

• Table I-1: Sites Identified in Minnesota

• Table I-2: Sites Identified in Wisconsin

• Description of MPCA Activities

NLX Environmental Assessment I - 1 February 2013 

Table I-1. Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of New Dedicated Track or Siding Extensions in Minnesota 

Property Name Address City Activity

Former Stromquist Motors Main St Braham Leak Site

Cell Agricultural Mfg Co 500 S Main St Braham Multiple Activities

Braham Oil Co 131 W Central Dr Braham Multiple Activities

Braham Moose Log 1544 RR 2 Braham Multiple Activities

Knife River Corp N Central Braham 1158 Regent St Braham Multiple Activities

Braham Motor Service Inc. 216 S Main St Braham Leak Site

Main Street Video of Braham 144 S Main PO Box 259 Braham Tank Site

Red & White Service Station Highway 23 Brook Park Multiple Activities

Cambridge Bulk Plant 205 Railroad St S Cambridge Leak Site

Cambridge North Bulk Plant Highway 95 & Cleveland Cambridge Leak Site

Fleetway Saw & Satellite 444 S Main St Cambridge Leak Site

Great River Energy - Cambridge 2438 349th Ave NE Cambridge Multiple Activities

Blue Fox Tackle Co 645 Emerson St N Cambridge Multiple Activities

Arrow Tank & Engineering Co 650 Emerson St N Cambridge Multiple Activities

Cortec Advanced Film Division 410 1st Ave E Cambridge Multiple Activities

Schlagel Inc 491 Emerson St N Cambridge Multiple Activities

Cambridge Collision Inc 205 S Railroad St Cambridge Multiple Activities

Property Highway 107 & 70 Grasston Leak Site

Grasston Dump Site About 1 mile north of Grasston Grasston Unpermitted Dump Site

Holyoke Dump 1⁄2 mile south of Center Road Holyoke Unpermitted Dump Site

Isanti Middle School 424 N 1st Ave Isanti Tank Site

Landmark Bank No address Isanti Leak Site

Isanti Farmers Creamery No address Isanti CERCLIS Site (closed)

Former Isanti Tire & Auto 101 W. Main Street Isanti Leak Site

Isanti Oil Co. Main Street and Railroad Ave. Isanti Leak Site

YCC Cabinets & Millwork 101 Railroad Ave Isanti Multiple Activities

Countryside Graphics Main St. Isanti Multiple Activities

Harrison Street Property 347 Harrison St 55411 Minneapolis Leak Site

Auto Truck Service Co 958 Central Ave NE 55413 Minneapolis Multiple Activities

Marco Company 621 Harrison St NE 55413 Minneapolis Multiple Activities

The Hustad Co - Central Ave 800 Central Ave NE 55413 Minneapolis Multiple Activities

Sign Center Inc The Supermarket of 

Signs 945 Broadway St NE 55413 Minneapolis Multiple Activities 

Qwest Communications - Mpls Garage 339 Harrison St NE 55413 Minneapolis Multiple Activities 

Twin City Auto Techs 1034 3rd Ave NE 55413 Minneapolis Tank Site

Harrison and Winter Site Near Harrison St NE Minneapolis Voluntary Investigation & 

Cleanup 

Dennis Farm 40376 Vickers St NE 55080 Stanchfield Feedlot

Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency “What’s in My Neighborhood” online database. See attached for definitions. 
NLX Environmental Assessment I - 2 February 2013 

Table I-2. Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of New Dedicated Track or Siding Extensions in Wisconsin 

Property Name Address City Impact Type

Burlington Northern Railroad Oakes Ave Superior Soil Contamination

Arco Coffee 2206 B Winter Street Superior Soil Contamination

McKenzie, Rod Homecroft Courts - #217 Superior Soil Contamination

General Electric Railcar Repair Service 2105 N 58th St Superior Soil Contamination

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources RR Sites Map online database
NLX Environmental Assessment I - 3 February 2013 

The MPCA “What’s in my Neighborhood?” database includes the following MPCA activities:

Tank Site: A tank site is a place with an underground or aboveground storage tank of a certain size on the 

premises. One tank site may have multiple tanks, and these tanks may contain food products, petroleum 

products, or other substances. Tank sites include gas stations, bus companies and trucking companies, as 

well as factories that process sugar beets, ethanol, pulp and paper, or chemicals.

Leak Site: Leak sites are locations where a release of petroleum products has occurred from a tank system. 

Leak sites can occur from aboveground or underground tank systems as well as from spills at tank facilities. 

A leak can result from an accident or from activities that occur over a long time.

Voluntary Investigation & Cleanup (VIC) Site: The Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program 

is a non-petroleum brownfield program. VIC provides technical assistance to buyers, sellers, developers or 

local governments seeking to voluntarily investigate or clean up contaminated land. 

Unpermitted Dump Site: Unpermitted dump sites are landfills that never held a valid permit from the 

MPCA. Generally, these dumps existed prior to the permitting program established with the creation of the 

MPCA in 1967. These dumps are not restricted to any type of waste, but were often old farm or municipal 

disposal sites that accepted household waste. 

Feedlots: Feedlots may be small farms or large-scale commercial livestock operations. They are places 

where animals are confined for feeding, breeding or holding. The MPCA and its county partners place 

requirements on how manure is managed at feedlots, so that it does not contaminate nearby surface water 

and groundwater. 

Multiple Activities: These sites are locations where there are multiple MPCA activities occurring. This 

could be a facility with a wastewater permit and an air quality permit, a site with a registered feedlot and a 

tank, etc.

CERCLIS Site. Suspected hazardous waste sites throughout the United States are listed in the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS. 

This federal database contains information on preliminary assessments, potential and actual hazardous waste 

sites, site inspections, and cleanup activities. CERCLIS sites are candidates for addition to the federal and 

state Superfund lists. 

APPENDIX I-1 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• Correspondence

• Draft Programmatic Agreement (PA)

• Draft PA Attachments 

• Area of Potential Effect (APE)


Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) 366-3615

Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) 366-3603

395 John Ireland Boulevard 

St. Paul, MN 55155

March 1, 2012 

Dr. Mary Ann Heidemann 

Government Programs & Compliance Officer

State Historic Preservation Office

Minnesota Historical Society

345 Kellogg Blvd.W. 

St. Paul, MN 55101 

RE: Northern Lights Express (NLX) from Minneapolis to Duluth/Superior 

 

Dear Dr. Heidemann:

The Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance (Alliance) is proposing to construct 

a high-speed passenger railroad known as the Northern Lights Express (NLX) from the Twin 

Cities to the Duluth/Superior area. The proposed project is receiving funding from the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA); therefore, it must comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(Section 106). The project is also receiving funding from the State of Minnesota and must also 

comply with applicable Minnesota state mandates governing cultural resources. The FRA is 

the lead federal agency and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the lead 

state agency for the project.

FRA has authorized the MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) to initiate consultation with 

your office on the NLX project on matters related to the completion of Section 106 (see 

attached letter). 

We have scheduled a meeting to begin consultation on this project with your office on next 

Tuesday, March 6th, at 2:00 PM. In accordance with our advisory role, FRA has asked that we

submit the Area of Potential Effect (APE) rationale to you in advance of the meeting (see 

attached). We have also attached a copy of the Programmatic Agreement (P.A.) that FRA has 

used in California in planning Section106 review of high speed rail projects in that state. We 

anticipate some discussion regarding agreement documents at our meeting and are sending this 

for your reference.

We know that this project must be completed in a very tight timeframe, so we appreciate your 

willingness to meet with us and anticipate working with you to manage the Section 106 

process as efficiently as possible. We look forward to meeting you next week.

Sincerely,

 Garneth O. Peterson 

Historian

Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) 

Enclosures 
cc: Colleen Vaughn, Federal Railroad Administration 

Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horn

 Jenny Bring, 106 Group 

MnDOT CRU Files 


Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) 366-3615

Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) 366-3603

395 John Ireland Boulevard 

St. Paul, MN 55155

March 28, 2012 

Ms. Kimberly Cook

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office

816 State Street, Rm. 306 

Madison, WI 53706

RE: Northern Lights Express (NLX) from Minneapolis to Duluth/Superior 

Dear Ms. Cook: 

The Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance (Alliance) is proposing to construct 

a high-speed passenger railroad known as the Northern Lights Express (NLX) from the Twin 

Cities through Douglas County, Wisconsin, to the Duluth/Superior area. The proposed project 

is receiving funding from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); therefore, it must 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (Section 106). The FRA is the lead federal agency and 

the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the lead state agency for the project.

FRA has authorized the MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) to initiate consultation with 

your office on the NLX project on matters related to the completion of Section 106. In 

accordance with our advisory role, FRA has asked that we submit the Area of Potential Effect 

(APE) rationale to you for your review and comment (see attachment). 

Representatives from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) have 

participated in meetings and conference calls with FRA and MnDOT to coordinate project 

planning, cultural resources investigations, and consultation efforts. Tribal consultation letters 

have been sent to appropriate Wisconsin tribes. Cultural resources work has proceeded and 

both the Phase IA archaeological survey report and Phase I architectural history survey 

documentation have been forwarded to Jason Kennedy, Environmental Review and Analysis 

Specialist at WisDOT, to begin the Section 106 review process for Wisconsin.

We look forward to receiving your comments on the enclosed APE rationale. Once comments 

have been received from MnDOT and WisDOT on the archaeological and architectural history 

surveys, FRA as the lead federal agency will formally submit those documents for review and 

comment to the Minnesota and Wisconsin SHPOs. 

This project must be completed in a very tight timeframe, with signature of an agreement 

document by June 30, 2012. Because the engineering and other effects will not be identified, 

we intend to prepare a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to guide the review of effects. We do 

intend to reach agreement on eligible properties prior to the PA, and will forward a copy of a 

draft PA to you for review when we have it developed. 

We look forward to working with you to complete the Section 106 process on this project and 

appreciate your assistance in this review. If you have any questions about our submittal please 

contact me at Garneth.Peterson@state.mn.us or by phone at 651-366-3615. 
Sincerely,

Garneth O. Peterson

Historian

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Environmental Stewardship, Cultural Resources Unit 

Enclosures 

Cc: Colleen Vaughn, Federal Railroad Administration 

 Mary Ann Heidemann, MnSHPO 

 Jason Kennedy, WisDOT

 Troy Stapelmann, WisDOT 

 Amy Adrihan, WisDOT 

 Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horne 

 Jenny Bring, 106 Group 

 MnDOT CRU Files

Page 1 6/26/2012 revision

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG 

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

THE MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, 

THE WISCONSIN STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, 

THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

REGARDING 

COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION ACT, 

AS IT PERTAINS TO THE NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS HIGH SPEED RAIL 

PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), in cooperation with the 

Minneapolis-Duluth-Superior Passenger Rail Alliance (Alliance) proposes to construct the 

Northern Lights Express High Speed Rail Project (NLX Project) between a southern terminus in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota and a northern terminus in Duluth, Minnesota/Superior, Wisconsin; and

WHEREAS, MnDOT has received a grant from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

through the Intercity Passenger Rail Program for initial planning, conceptual design, and 

preliminary engineering for the NLX Project; and

WHEREAS, FRA is the lead federal agency relative to this Undertaking for compliance with 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), codified at 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations at 36 

CFR Part 800; and 

WHEREAS, MnDOT and the Alliance, in cooperation with FRA, are preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the requirements of NEPA to address the 

potential impact of the NLX Project on a variety of human and natural resources; and 

WHEREAS, the Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) was determined by FRA and MnDOT 

pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1); and 

WHEREAS, MnDOT, on behalf of FRA, has completed Phase I survey within the APE for the 

NLX Corridor and identified properties that are potentially eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and 

WHEREAS, MnDOT will prepare, at the direction of FRA, additional environmental 

documentation on subsequent phases of the NLX Corridor implementation, in accordance with 

NEPA, including any cultural resource studies required for Section 106; and

WHEREAS, FRA has a statutory obligation, as a Federal agency, to fulfill the requirements of 

Section 106; and 
Page 2 6/26/2012 revision

WHEREAS, FRA has delegated to MnDOT various actions required by Section 106, as set forth 

in this Programmatic Agreement (PA) and a delegation letter to the Minnesota State Historic 

Preservation Office (MnSHPO) dated November 3, 2011; and

WHEREAS, FRA authorizes MnDOT to initiate consultation with the Minnesota State Historic 

Preservation Office (MnSHPO) and the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office 

(WisSHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.14(b)(1)(iii) for the Undertaking covered by this PA; and

WHEREAS, FRA and MnDOT have initiated consultation with the Minnesota State Historic 

Preservation Office and the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office concerning the 

potential types of effects the NLX Project may incur on historic properties within Minnesota and 

Wisconsin, respectively; and

WHEREAS, MnSHPO and WisSHPO for purposes of this PA agree to consult only on historic 

properties within their respective states; and 

WHEREAS, the WisDOT and WisSHPO have agreed that MnSHPO will have jurisdiction over 

the Grassy Point Bridge, which crosses into both states; and 

WHEREAS, The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, which owns the right-of-way 

and operates freight rail service within the NLX Corridor, wish/do not wish to participate in this 

PA as a Concurring Party; and

WHEREAS, FRA has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 

concerning this PA and they do not wish to participate in this PA as a signatory.

WHEREAS, the purpose of this PA is to provide project wide consistency in consultation 

procedures, documentation standards, and Federal agency oversight in compliance with Section 

106 of the NHPA for NLX Project; and 

WHEREAS, the NLX Project design is currently at concept-level engineering with the EA 

identifying broad “worst-case” impacts that would potentially result from project 

implementation; and 

WHEREAS, following the EA, the NLX Project will enter the Preliminary Engineering phase, 

where greater information will be available regarding the ability to avoid, minimize or mitigate 

potential impacts to historic properties resulting from the NLX Corridor and future site specific 

projects; and

WHEREAS, FRA has determined that a phased process for compliance with Section 106, as 

provided for in 36 CFR § 800.4(b)(2), is appropriate for the NLX Project such that completion of 

the identification of historic properties, determination of effects on historic properties, and 

consultation concerning measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate if needed, any adverse effects 

will be carried out prior to any notice to proceed to construction and site specific project 

implementation; and
Page 3 6/26/2012 revision

WHEREAS, FRA has determined that the proposed NLX Project includes rail lines, associated 

structures, maintenance and ancillary facilities, construction easements, and staging areas, which 

are subject to Section 106 review and may have an effect upon historic properties included on or 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The NLX Project includes the following stages:

• Stage 1: NLX Corridor as detailed in the EA (NLX Corridor). 

• Stage 2: All other site specific project elements and facilities not analyzed in the EA (Site 

Specific Projects). 

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, FRA and MnDOT conducted a public and 

agency involvement program as part of the environmental review process for the EA through 

which information was provided to federal, state, and local agency representatives; elected 

officials; property owners; interested persons; and interested organizations; and 

WHEREAS, FRA and MnDOT prepared a list of Native American Tribes or groups for Section 

106 consultation for the EA and initiated consultation with the identified federally-recognized 

Native American tribes. FRA sent letters to these tribes providing information about the 

proposed project alternatives and requesting information about any traditional cultural properties 

that could be affected by the NLX Project; and 

WHEREAS, FRA and MnDOT will continue to consult with federally-recognized Native 

American Tribes, concerning properties of traditional religious and cultural significance; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, MnDOT, WisDOT, MnSHPO and WisSHPO are signatories pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.6(c)(1) and have authority to execute, amend, or terminate this PA; and 

WHEREAS, BNSF owns the right-of-way and operates freight rail service within the NLX

corridor and conducts routine maintenance activities that may affect historic bridges, culverts, 

and other historic resources along the rail line and is a concurring party to this PA; and

WHEREAS, all of the signatories to this PA agree to implement the procedure and measures 

described herein for the NLX Project in keeping with the following stipulations; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, the signatories agree that the proposed NLX Project covered by this PA

shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to consider the effect 

of each element of the NLX Project on historic properties and that these stipulations shall govern 

compliance of the proposed NLX project with Section 106 of the NHPA until this PA expires or 

is terminated.

STIPULATIONS

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Unless FRA has amended or terminated this PA, this PA shall apply to the NLX Project. 
Page 4 6/26/2012 revision

B. Except as provided for in Stipulation IV below, this PA shall not apply to effects of the NLX 

Project that occur on or affect tribal lands as defined in Section 301(14) of the NHPA. While 

no use of tribal land is anticipated, if such undertakings occur, the lead Federal agency will

follow appropriate tribal consultation procedures in 36 CFR Part 800 with regard to those 

effects. 

C. In the event that MnDOT applies for additional federal funding or approvals for the 

undertakings from another agency that is not party to this PA and the NLX Project, as 

described herein, remains unchanged, such funding or approving agency may choose to 

comply with Section 106 by agreeing in writing to the terms of this PA and notifying and 

consulting with FRA, MnDOT, WisDOT, MnSHPO, and WisSHPO. Any necessary 

modifications will be considered in accordance with Stipulation XVII.B of this PA. 

II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. FRA

As the lead Federal agency, FRA has primary responsibility pursuant to 36 CFR § 

800.2(a)(2) to ensure that the provisions of this PA are carried out. FRA will conduct 

government-to-government consultation with federally-recognized Native American tribes, 

execute MOAs for the NLX Corridor and each future site specific project of the NLX 

Project, and participate in the resolution of disputes. FRA is responsible for all 

determinations of eligibility and finding of Effect of the undertakings. Consistent with the 

requirements of 36 CFR §§ 800.2(a) and 800.2(c)(4), FRA remains legally responsible for 

ensuring that the terms of this PA are carried out and for all findings and determinations 

made pursuant to this PA. 

B. MnDOT

FRA has delegated to MnDOT responsibility for the implementation of the following 

provisions of this PA: Consult with other consulting parties and the public; conduct Section 

106 reviews in a timely manner; delineate and change the APE as needed and get FRA 

permission for and inform the other signatories of the change; prepare documentation for 

MnSHPO, WisSHPO and FRA including determinations of eligibility and effect; circulate 

comments from signatories; maintain documentation of the Section 106 compliance for the 

NLX Corridor and each site specific project within the NLX Project; develop a prototype 

MOA for the NLX Corridor and each site specific project within the NLX Project; invite 

local agencies, Native American groups, interested non-governmental organizations, and 

individuals to participate in the development of the NLX Corridor and each site specific

project MOAs to agree upon means to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse effects to 

historic properties; develop and implement site specific project MOAs for the NLX Corridor 

and each site specific project; develop a built-environment treatment plan and an 

archaeological treatment plan to be used for the NLX Corridor and each site specific project; 

develop and implement the individual NLX Corridor and site specific project treatment 

plans, as provisions in the MOAs for the NLX Corridor and each site specific project; and 

ensure project information is available to consulting parties and the public in concert with the 
Page 5 6/26/2012 revision

NEPA process for the NLX Corridor and each site specific project. MnDOT’s Cultural 

Resources Unit (CRU) will manage the Section 106 actions delegated to MnDOT. 

C. MnSHPO and WisSHPO

1. MnSHPO and WisSHPO shall be responsible for reviewing project documentation in a 

timely manner and participating in consultation as set forth in this PA for the State of 

Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin, respectively.

2. All submittals to MnSHPO and WisSHPO shall be in paper format. 

3. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4), the MnSHPO and WisSHPO shall review and comment on 

all adequately documented project submittals within 30 calendar days of receipt 

D. BNSF

BNSF is responsible for identifying routine maintenance activities within the NLX corridor that 

the signatories to this PA agree have no potential to affect historic properties, as specifically 

described in Attachment D. BNSF retains all existing responsibilities for compliance with 

agreed-upon mitigation actions that are determined in the Section 106 consultation process. 

III. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STANDARDS

All actions prescribed by this PA that involve the identification, evaluation, analysis, recording, 

treatment, monitoring, or disposition for historic properties, or that involve reporting or 

documentation of such actions in the form of reports, forms, or other records, shall be carried out 

by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons who meet, at a minimum, the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-44739) (Appendix A to 36 

CFR Part 61) in the appropriate discipline. Hereinafter, such persons shall be referred to as 

Principal Investigators (PIs). MnDOT shall ensure that the work outlined in this PA is conducted 

by staff meeting these qualifications standards. However, nothing in this stipulation may be 

interpreted to preclude FRA or MnDOT or any agent or contractor thereof from using the 

services of persons who are not PIs, as long as their activities are overseen by PIs. 

IV. ON-GOING CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

A. FRA

1. As the Lead Federal agency with responsibility for Section 106 compliance, FRA is 

responsible for all government to government consultation with federally-recognized tribes. 

A list of federally-recognized Native American tribes contacted can be found in Attachment 

C. 

2. FRA requested government-to-government consultation on the NLX Project via letters sent 

to all federally-recognized Native American tribes that could be affected by the undertaking
Page 6 6/26/2012 revision

described in this PA. Federally-recognized Native American tribes were provided a 30-

calendar-day opportunity to comment. 

3. FRA shall ensure that on-going consultation with federally-recognized Native American 

tribes continues early in the project development process for the NLX Corridor and each site 

specific project within the NLX Project to identify cultural, confidentiality, or other concerns 

including those about historic properties, and to allow adequate time for consideration of 

such concerns whenever they may be expressed. 

4. In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.2(c)(2), federally-recognized Native American tribes may 

be identified as consulting parties for the NLX Corridor and individual site specific projects 

within this NLX Project and in subsequent MOAs that are prepared for the NLX Corridor 

and each site specific project within the NLX Project covered by this PA as described further 

in Stipulation VIII.A. 

5. Consultation with federally-recognized Native American tribes shall continue throughout the 

development of NLX Corridor and subsequent site specific projects within the NLX Project, 

regardless of whether such tribes responded within 30 days to the consultation letter sent by 

FRA attempting to initiate such consultations at the outset of this NLX Project. 

6. FRA shall identify tribes who will participate in an undertaking as a consulting party and 

shall consider future written requests to participate as consulting parties in an undertaking. 

B. MnDOT

1. MnDOT may consult informally with the federally-recognized tribes and will coordinate 

such consultation with FRA, as appropriate. 

C. Consultation for each Undertaking 

1. MnDOT may invite federally-recognized Native American tribes that attach religious and 

cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking to 

participate in informal informational meetings for the NLX Corridor and site specific 

projects, if deemed necessary by the parties involved. 

2. FRA shall consult on a government-to-government basis with federally-recognized Native 

American tribes identified as consulting parties that attach religious and cultural significance 

to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking at key milestones in the Section 

106 and NEPA processes to gain input from Tribal governments. MnDOT shall consult with 

all other involved Native American groups. The Tribal consultation includes the following 

Native American consultation points: 

i. During identification of cultural or historic properties, to confirm the historic or cultural 

properties identified. 

ii. During assessment of adverse effects, (a) to provide requested inventory forms of 

historic properties adversely affected for review, (b) to determine when and where tribal 
Page 7 6/26/2012 revision

monitors may be needed during ground disturbing activities in previously identified 

sensitive areas or known sites, and (c) to develop avoidance, minimization and treatment 

measures for adverse effects to both archaeological and built resources.

iii. During resolution of adverse effects, (a) to develop and finalize treatment plans for 

archaeology and built resources, (b) develop and execute MOAs, and (c) to determine 

when and where tribal monitors may be needed during treatment plan implementation or 

construction. 

iv. During treatment plan and MOA implementation, (a) to provide for Tribal Monitors 

where agreed upon, (b) to review and comment on the Programmatic Agreement Annual 

Report, including input on the treatment plan and MOA implementation. 

V. PARTICIPATION OF OTHER CONSULTING PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC

A. Public Involvement

Public involvement in planning and implementation of undertakings covered by this PA shall 

be governed by FRA’s and MnDOT’s environmental compliance procedures, as set forth by 

MnDOT’s environmental planning methods, and any advice and guidance documents. 

Historic resources will be identified and effects will be disclosed to the extent allowable 

under 36 CFR §§ 800.2(d)(1-2), 800.3(e), and 800.11(c)(1 and 3) and Stipulation XII of this 

PA. Consistent with Section 106, the public and consulting parties will have an opportunity 

to comment and have concerns taken into account on findings identified in Section 106 

survey and effects documents via attendance at public meetings where they can submit 

comments on the information presented, as well as access the Section 106 documents. Public 

meetings specific to historic properties and the effects of the project and treatment of these 

properties will be held in locations along the corridor and for site specific projects. Interest 

groups and interested individuals will be invited to comment on the treatments proposed and 

those with demonstrated interest in the project will be invited to participate as consulting 

parties to the individual section MOAs. 

Public involvement and the release of information hereunder shall be consistent with 36 CFR 

§§ 800.2(d)(1-2), 800.3(e), and 800.11(c)(1 and 3), and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 552, and the implementing regulation applicable to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, at 49 CFR Part 7.

B. Consulting Parties

Consulting parties shall participate in undertakings covered by this PA in accordance with 36 

CFR §§ 800.2(c)(3) through (5) and 800.3(f). Consulting parties may include other federal, 

state, regional, or local agencies that may have responsibilities for historic properties and 

may want to review reports and findings for an undertaking within their jurisdiction. 

MnDOT shall submit to MnSHPO, and WisSHPO a list of consulting parties for the NLX 

Corridor and each subsequent site specific project and a summary of coordination efforts and 

comments received. MnSHPO and WisSHPO shall submit comments, including 

recommendations for additional parties to MnDOT within 30 days. MnDOT shall revise and 
Page 8 6/26/2012 revision

update this information as necessary based on MnSHPO’s and WisSHPO’s comments, and 

re-submit them to MnSHPO and WisSHPO as part of the reports to be prepared under 

Stipulation VI. MnDOT and FRA shall also consider individuals’ written requests to 

participate as consulting parties in the development of measures to avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR §§ 800.11(e) through (g), 

comments made by the public will be included in documentation of project effects to the 

NLX Corridor and subsequent site specific MOAs. 

VI. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. Area of Potential Effects

An APE for the NLX Corridor was developed by FRA and MnDOT pursuant to 36 CFR 

800.4(a)(1) and taking into account statements by stakeholders and interested parties. The 

APE for each site specific project will be determined by MnDOT, on behalf of FRA, in 

accordance with the APE for the NLX Corridor and the APE Delineation guidelines 

(Attachment A). As described in Attachment A, throughout the design process, MnDOT will 

determine if revisions to an undertaking require modifications to the APE. If an APE requires 

revisions, MnDOT is responsible for informing the signatories, together with FRA or other 

federal agency, consulting Federally-recognized Native American tribes, and other 

consulting parties. 

B. Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties 

1. The signatories to this PA along with the concurring tribes agree that MnDOT will have the 

responsibility to identify historic properties and prepare documentation in accordance with 

Attachment B. As appropriate, these methods may be modified for the NLX Project or site 

specific project specific needs in consultation with the signatories and in accordance with PI 

review and current professional standards. Findings shall be made by MnDOT to FRA based 

on NRHP criteria (36 CFR § 60.4) and evaluated in accordance with provisions of 36 CFR 

§800.4(c). Evaluation methods and criteria shall be consistent with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation (48 Fed. Reg. 44729-44738) (36 CFR § 

63) and shall be completed by PIs qualified in the appropriate discipline: archaeology, 

architectural history, or history. 

2. Historic properties shall be identified to the extent possible within the APE for the NLX 

Corridor and each of the site specific projects within the Undertaking that comprise the NLX

Project and will be documented in individual Survey Reports (SR) as described in 

Attachment B. The content, methodology, level of effort, and documentation requirements 

for historic property evaluations in the SR shall follow federal and Minnesota and Wisconsin 

guidelines and instructions, and are provided in detail in Attachment B. The identification 

effort and ineligible properties shall be documented in separate technical reports for 

archaeological properties and historic architectural properties, the drafts of which will be 

submitted for review by the signatories and other consulting parties including tribal historic 

preservation officers (THPOs) and tribal representatives who have expressed an interest in 

the undertaking.
Page 9 6/26/2012 revision

i. Archaeological properties include precontact and historic period archaeological sites, 

objects, and districts, and properties identified as per § 800.4. Evaluations shall be made 

by PIs fully qualified in the discipline of archaeology. Archaeological properties within 

the APE shall be documented in the SR. The content, methodology, level of effort, and 

documentation requirements for archaeological evaluations in the SR are provided in 

detail in Attachment B. Any archaeological investigations that may be required for 

portions of the project in Minnesota or Wisconsin on non-federal publicly owned land 

shall be conducted under a State Archaeologist’s permit (Minnesota § 138.31-.42 and 

WIS. § 44.47). The goal of the investigation is to locate and identify any significant 

archaeological resources that could be affected by the project, well in advance of any 

project construction. The results of the survey will be used in consultation in order to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to identified significant archaeological 

resources. This requirement shall be incorporated into all Archaeological Treatment 

Plans proposed for portions of the projects or project phases in Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

ii. Historic architectural properties include historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, 

landscapes and districts. Evaluations shall be made by PIs. Historic architectural 

properties within the APE that are identified by PIs as historic properties shall be 

documented in the SR. Historic architectural properties evaluated as ineligible for the 

NRHP by PIs shall be documented in the SR. The content, methodology, level of effort, 

and documentation requirements for historic architectural evaluations in the SR are 

provided in detail in Attachment B. 

C. Review of Documentation of Historic Properties 

1. Upon review and concurrence of the findings by FRA, a Draft SR would be submitted by 

MnDOT to the signatories and identified consulting parties, including Native American 

tribes, upon request and would include documentation of all properties in the APE that are 

listed in the NRHP, previously determined eligible for the NRHP, found eligible for the 

NRHP by PIs, or that appear ineligible for the NRHP. Known archaeological properties that 

cannot be evaluated prior to approval of an undertaking will be presumed NRHP eligible. 

Where archaeological testing to determine NRHP eligibility is not feasible during the 

identification and evaluation phase, project-specific MOAs may include a provision for 

treatment plans that include archaeological testing or use of a combined archaeological 

testing and data recovery program. 

2. MnDOT shall submit its findings in the SR to the signatories and consulting parties, 

including Native American tribes, identified as a result of Stipulations IV.C and V.B, who 

shall have 30-days to review the SR findings and provide their recommendations for changes 

to the findings based on National Register criteria. If no objection is made, consistent with 

Stipulation VI.D, within the 30-day period, the findings for those historic properties would 

become final. 

3. Other non-eligible properties within the APE will be evaluated by PIs, documented for each 

undertaking in a SR, and submitted to MnSHPO or WisSHPO for review and concurrence If 
Page 10 6/26/2012 revision

MnSHPO, WisSHPO, agency reviewer, consulting Native American tribe, or other 

consulting party asks for additional information or a re-evaluation of a property, that property 

and the updated finding of eligibility or non-eligibility shall be included in the Final SR. 

Comments received from the MnSHPO, WisSHPO, the THPO, agency reviewer(s), 

consulting Native American Tribe(s), and other consulting parties will be considered and 

may be incorporated into a Final SR. 

4 If, after the submission of the Final SR, there are changes to the APE that include additional 

properties not exempt from evaluation or information is received that there may be additional 

historic properties within the APE, a Supplemental SR will be prepared, and distributed 

following review by FRA, to MnSHPO, WisSHPO and all parties who received the Final SR 

for a review and comment period of 30 days. If no objection is made, consistent with 

Stipulation VI.D, within the 30-day period, the findings for those historic properties in the 

Supplemental SR would become final. 

D. Eligibility Disagreements

Should a disagreement arise regarding the NRHP eligibility of a property in the APE for an 

undertaking, FRA shall forward a Determination of Eligibility documentation to the Keeper 

of the National Register (Keeper) for resolution in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(c)(2) if:

1. MnSHPO, WisSHPO or a federal agency with jurisdiction over the involved lands objects in 

writing within 30 days to a finding of eligibility, or

2. A Native American tribe or group that ascribes traditional religious and cultural significance 

to a property objects in writing within 30 days to a Finding of Eligibility regarding that 

property; and 

3. FRA is not able to resolve that objection through consultation with the MnSHPO or 

WisSHPO and the objecting party as provided for in Stipulation XVII.A.

Should a member of the public disagree with any NRHP eligibility determinations, MnDOT 

shall inform FRA and any affected signatories and take the appropriate objection into 

account. MnDOT shall consult for no more than 30 days with the objecting party and, with 

any or all of the other signatories. MnDOT shall document such consultation efforts and 

submit the findings in writing to FRA for review. FRA’s decision regarding resolution of the 

objection from a member of the public will be final.

E. Phased Identification 

In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(b)(2), phased identification may occur in situations 

where identification of historic properties cannot be completed. In these cases, subsequent 

MOAs will provide a provision for the development and implementation of a post-review 

identification and evaluation effort as applicable to the NLX Project. 

VII. ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 
Page 11 6/26/2012 revision

A. If historic properties are identified within the APE for NLX Project, MnDOT shall assess 

adverse effects in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.5 and document its assessment in the SR, 

providing it to FRA for review, for each undertaking where historic properties were 

identified within the APE. The SR shall describe the assessment of potential adverse effects 

to historic properties that would result from the construction or operation of the project, and 

identify mitigation measures that would eliminate or minimize effects to be incorporated into 

the design and construction documents of the NLX Project. Following FRA review and 

concurrence, MnDOT shall distribute the SR to the signatories, and other consulting parties, 

including Native American tribes, identified as a result of Stipulations IV.C and V.B, who 

shall have a 30-day review and comment period. MnDOT shall ensure that comments are 

considered prior to finalizing the SR for submission to the SHPO for final review and 

concurrence. The MnSHPO or WisSHPO shall have an additional 15 days for review and 

concurrence with the final SR. 

B. FRA will notify and invite the Secretary of the Interior (represented by the National Park 

Service regional office’s program coordinator) when any project section may adversely affect 

a National Historic Landmark (NHL) pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.10 and Section 110(f) of the 

NHPA.

C. Consistent with 36 CFR. §§ 800.5(b) and (d)(1), FRA may determine that there is no adverse 

effect on historic properties within the APE for an undertaking when the effects of the 

undertaking would not meet the Criteria of Adverse Effect at 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1), the 

undertaking is modified to avoid adverse effects, or if conditions agreed upon by SHPO are 

imposed, such as subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the

MnSHPO/WisSHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid 

adverse effects. Any conditions would be documented by the written concurrence of the 

consulting parties. MnDOT will submit all such written concurrence documents to FRA, 

which is responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions to avoid adverse effects. 

VIII. TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. Memoranda of Agreement

1. A MOA will be developed by MnDOT for the NLX Corridor and each site specific project 

that FRA determines would have an adverse effect to historic properties or when phased 

identification is necessary and adverse effects could occur. 

2. Each MOA will include avoidance, minimization, and protective measures for eligible 

properties identified in the SRs such as preservation-in-place; processes for addressing 

project design changes or refinements after the SRs for the NLX Corridor and each site 

specific project are completed, and a process for efficiently addressing unanticipated

discoveries in the post-review period. 
Page 12 6/26/2012 revision

3. FRA will notify the ACHP of any findings of adverse effect and invite the ACHP to 

participate in the development of the MOAs pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(i)(c), as 

appropriate.

4. Should Native American tribes or groups decline to participate as signatories to a NLX 

Corridor or site specific project MOA, they will not be provided documentation regarding 

treatment that is called for in that NLX Corridor or site specific MOA. Native American 

tribes and groups will continue to receive information on the NLX Corridor or subsequent 

site specific project MOAs as part of the NEPA process and may request to consult at any 

time on an undertaking, or request additional coordination with MnDOT or FRA. 

5. Pursuant to 36 CFR §§ 800.11(e) through (g), views of the public will be considered and 

included where appropriate in specific project MOAs.

6. Upon review, concurrence, and execution of the MOA, Section 106 review will be 

considered concluded for the NLX Corridor or particular site specific project, though 

coordination and compliance efforts would continue according to the terms of this PA and 

the MOA. 

B. Individual Treatment Plans 

1. Treatment plans will be developed by MnDOT for the NLX Corridor or each site specific 

project. Where National Register eligible buildings or structures may be adversely affected 

by the NLX Corridor or a site specific project, a Built Environment Treatment Plan will be 

prepared. Where National Register eligible archaeological properties may be adversely 

affected by the NLX Corridor or a site specific project, an Archaeological Treatment Plan

will be prepared. Such Treatment Plans will include, respectively:

i. The Built Environment Treatment Plan (BETP) will provide detailed descriptions of 

treatment measures for eligible buildings, structures, objects, landscapes and districts that 

will be affected by the undertaking. The BETP will also include descriptions of measures 

to be taken to protect historic properties and to avoid further adverse effects to historic 

properties. In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1), BETPs will take into account the 

cumulative and foreseeable effects of the NLX Project on historic architectural 

properties. 

ii. The Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) will provide detailed descriptions of 

protection measures for archaeological resources and resources of importance to 

Federally Recognized Native American Tribes or Native American groups because of 

cultural affinity. The ATP could include but is not limited to the establishment of 

archaeologically sensitive areas, use of preconstruction archaeological excavation, 

preservation-in-place, avoidance, minimization, monitoring during construction where 

appropriate, procedures to be followed when unanticipated discoveries are encountered, 

processes for evaluation and data recovery of discoveries, responsibilities and 

coordination with Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, Native American 
Page 13 6/26/2012 revision

groups, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 

3001 et seq., compliance, and curation of recovered materials.

2. Each treatment plan will address historic properties adversely affected and set forth means to 

avoid, protect, or develop treatment measures to minimize the NLX Project’s effects where 

MnDOT, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, MnSHPO and/or WisSHPO, and 

other MOA signatories, determines that adverse effects cannot be avoided. The treatment 

plans will conform to the principles of the Council’s Treatment of Archaeological Properties: 

A Handbook Parts I and II, the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation” (48 Fed. Reg. 44716-44742 (September 29, 1983), 

and appropriate MnSHPO and WisSHPO Guidelines. MnDOT will take into consideration 

the concerns of the consulting parties in determining the measures to be implemented. 

3. Each treatment plan will include, but not be limited to, the content outlined in Attachment B 

for treatment plans. The consultative procedure through which a treatment plan is developed 

will address the adverse effect of any undertaking on historic properties and indicate that the 

treatment plan will be incorporated into an MOA. 

C. Treatment Plan Reviews

1. Signatory Review

MnDOT shall provide the treatment plans to FRA for review, prior to providing it to MOA 

signatories and MOA concurring parties for a 30-day review and comment period. Based on 

comments received, treatment plans will be revised and resubmitted for a final 30-day 

review. If FRA, MOA signatories and/or MOA concurring parties fail to comment within 

30-days of receiving the treatment plan, MnDOT may assume concurrence of the other 

parties and proceed with the implementation of the treatment plan. Treatment plans may be 

amended by MnDOT, upon FRA review without amending the MOAs. MnDOT and FRA 

will make a good faith effort to identify major alterations to treatment plans that 

substantively affect mitigative measures and seek additional consultation with the other 

MOA signatories before approving revised treatment plans. Where warranted, such good 

faith efforts shall include submittal of the draft revised Treatment Plan to the MOA 

signatories a minimum of 15 calendar days prior to the anticipated approval of the revisions. 

Disputes will be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution clause in Stipulation 

XVII.A.

2. Public Participation

MnDOT shall take reasonable steps to provide opportunities for members of the public to 

express their views on the treatment plans. Opportunities for public input may include the 

distribution of treatment plans consistent with 36 CFR §§ 800.2(d)(1-2), 800.3(e), and 

800.11(c)(1) and (3). Where appropriate, MnDOT will hold informational meetings with the 

public to explain the treatment plans and obtain comment. Any public comments received 

will be considered and incorporated into the treatment plans as appropriate. 
Page 14 6/26/2012 revision

D. Treatment Plan Implementation

1. Upon execution of each MOA and prior to the commencement of construction activities, 

each related treatment plan will be implemented. Depending upon the nature of the 

treatment, the treatment may not be completed until after the specific project or the NLX 

Project is completed. Termination of the project after initiation of the treatment plans will 

require completion of any work in progress, and amendment of each treatment plan as 

described below. Amendments to the treatment plans will be incorporated by written 

agreement among the signatories to the MOA. Each MOA will outline appropriate reporting 

processes for the treatment plans.

2. Dispute Resolution 

The parties participating in the development and implementation of the treatment plans will 

come to agreement on the treatment prescribed in and the implementation of the treatment 

plan in the MOA. If the parties are unable to come to agreement on the treatment of adverse 

effects in the MOA, the procedures outlined in XVII.A will be followed to resolve the 

dispute. 

IX. CHANGES IN ANCILLARY AREA/CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY

MnDOT will notify the MOA signatories and consulting parties of changes in the size or location 

of ancillary areas or the construction right-of-way that result in changes to the APE, or effects to 

historic properties (see Attachment A) as appropriate. If any changes result in the use of 

unsurveyed areas, MnDOT will ensure that these areas are surveyed in order to locate any 

potentially significant cultural resources and that those resources are evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility. MnDOT will consult with the MOA signatories and consulting parties regarding any 

newly identified historic properties that cannot be avoided. Protective and/or mitigation 

measures will be developed and the treatment plans will be amended and implemented in 

accordance with Stipulation VIII. All such changes will be documented in the annual 

Programmatic Agreement report.

X. CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL

Upon the completion of the pre-construction activities prescribed in the treatment plans and after 

treatment plan implementation where adverse impacts would occur, and in accordance with the 

provisions of the applicable MOA, or where no historic properties were identified, MnDOT may 

authorize construction within portions of the APE. If concurrence of the approval to proceed 

cannot be reached among the signatories, the dispute will be resolved in accordance with 

Stipulation XVII.A. 

XI. DISCOVERIES, UNANTICIPATED ADVERSE EFFECTS, UNANTICIPATED 

DAMAGE

 

In accordance with 36 CFR § 800.13(a)(2), if a previously undiscovered archaeological, 

historical, or cultural property is encountered during construction, or previously known 
Page 15 6/26/2012 revision

properties will be affected or have been affected in an unanticipated adverse manner, MnDOT 

will implement the following procedures:

A. MnDOT shall ensure that all operations for the portion of the undertaking with the potential 

to affect an historic property are immediately ceased and will contact FRA and affected 

MOA signatories if appropriate upon unanticipated resource discovery; 

B. MnDOT shall make a preliminary determination of the National Register eligibility of the 

historic property and the potential for the undertaking to adversely affect the resource and 

shall forward that finding to FRA who will make the final eligibility determination. If 

adverse effects to the resource can be avoided, no consultation with MOA signatories and 

consulting parties is necessary. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, MnDOT will consult 

with the MOA signatories and propose treatment measures to minimize the effects. 

C. MnDOT shall notify Federally-recognized Native American tribes of any discoveries that 

have the potential to adversely affect properties of religious or cultural significance to them. 

After being notified of such discoveries, the Native American tribes can request further 

consultation on the project by notifying MnDOT, in writing or other documented means 

within three business days. For interested Native American groups that are not Federallyrecognized, MnDOT shall notify them of any discoveries that have the potential to adversely 

affect properties of religious or cultural significance to them. After reviewing such 

discoveries, such interested Native American groups can request further consultation on the 

project by notifying MnDOT in writing within three business days; and

D. MnDOT shall implement the avoidance, minimization, or treatment plan and advise FRA and 

other signatories of the satisfactory completion of the approved work. Once the approved 

work is completed, the activities that were halted to address the discovery of resources may 

resume; and

E. Any treatment to damaged properties will follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the treatment of historic properties. If MnDOT determines damaged property should be 

repaired after construction is completed, then stabilization measures that will prevent and not 

cause further damage will be undertaken; and

F. If a National Historic Landmark is affected, MnDOT shall include the Secretary of the 

Interior represented by the National Park Service regional office’s program coordinator and 

the ACHP in the notification process. 

XII. CONFIDENTIALITY

All parties to this PA shall ensure that shared data, including data concerning the precise location 

and nature of historic properties and properties of religious and cultural significance are 

protected from public disclosure to the greatest extent permitted by law, including conformance 

to Section 304 of the NHPA, as amended and Section 9 of the Archaeological Resource 

Protection Act and Executive Order on Sacred Sites 13007 FR 61-104 dated May 24, 1996. 
Page 16 6/26/2012 revision

XIII. HUMAN REMAINS

A. Notification and Treatment

1. If human remains are inadvertently discovered during construction activities, applicable state 

laws and procedures will be followed. Human remains and grave goods will also be treated 

in accordance with the applicable project-specific treatment plan.

2. Federal agencies party to this PA will be responsible for curation of all records and other 

archaeological items resulting from identification and data recovery efforts on Federal lands 

within the agency’s jurisdiction. This includes ensuring that the disposition of any human 

remains and associated funerary objects of Native American origin encountered on federal 

land during any action subject to this PA complies with § 3(c)(d) of the NAGPRA, and its 

implementing regulations codified at 43 CFR Part 10. 

3. Any human remains and funerary objects discovered on non-federal land within the State of 

Minnesota during the implementation of the terms of this PA and during the implementation 

of the undertaking itself will be treated by MnDOT in accordance with the requirements of 

the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act (Minnesota § 307.08).. 

4. Any human remains and funerary objects discovered on non-federal land within the State of 

Wisconsin during the implementation of the terms of this PA and during the implementation 

of the undertaking itself will be treated by MnDOT in accordance with the requirements of 

the Wisconsin Burial Sites Protection law (Wisconsin § 157.70 and Wisconsin 

Administrative Code § HS 2.02(15), 2.04(2)). 

5. All human remains shall be treated in a manner consistent with ACHP “Policy Statement 

regarding Treatment of Human Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects” 

February 23, 2007; http//www.achp.gov/docs/hrpolicy0207.pdf 

XIV. CURATION

A. Collections from Federal Lands 

Federal agencies party to this PA will be responsible for curation of all records and other 

archeological items resulting from identification and data recovery efforts on Federal lands is 

completed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79, and if the archaeological materials are 

determined to be of Native American origin, the agencies will follow NAGPRA regulations 

and procedures set forth in 43 CFR Part 10. MnDOT shall ensure that documentation of the 

curation of these materials is prepared and provided to the affected parties to this PA within 

10 days of receiving the archaeological materials.

B. Collections from State and Private Lands
Page 17 6/26/2012 revision

Cultural materials discovered on state lands shall belong to the respective states according to 

Minn. Stat. §§ 138.31 to 138.42 and Wis. Stat. § 44.77 and shall be curated in accordance 

with applicable laws and procedures.

Private landowners in Minnesota and Wisconsin shall be encouraged to curate archeological 

materials recovered from their lands, as recommended in the foregoing statutes. 

XV. DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS 

A. All documentation that supports the findings and determinations made under this PA shall be 

consistent with 36 CFR § 800.11 and shall be in accordance with MnDOT’s requirements 

and its subsequent revisions or editions and with attachments to this PA. Documentation shall 

be submitted to MnDOT and prepared by PIs who, at a minimum, meet the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-44739) (Appendix A to 36 

CFR Part 61). MnDOT shall review the documentation for adequacy, and transmit all 

documentation cited herein as stipulated by this PA. 

B. All documentation prepared under this PA shall be kept on file at MnDOT and FRA and 

made available to the public without the inclusion of culturally sensitive information that 

may jeopardize confidentiality as stipulated by this PA, consistent with applicable 

confidentiality requirements and Federal records management requirements.

XVI. AUTHORITIES

Compliance with the provisions of this PA does not relieve FRA or other federal agencies of any 

other responsibilities not described in this PA to comply with other legal requirements, including 

those imposed by NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. Section 3001 and 43 CFR 10), the ARPA (16 U.S.C. 

Section 470 aa-47011), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. Section 4321-4347), and applicable Executive 

Orders.

XVII. ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS

A. Dispute Resolution 

1. Should any signatory to this PA object within 30 days to any action proposed or any 

document provided for review pursuant to this PA, FRA shall consult with the objecting 

signatory to resolve the objection. If FRA determines that the objection cannot be resolved 

within 15 days, FRA shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including 

FRA’s proposed resolution, to the ACHP. FRA will also provide a copy to all signatories 

and consulting parties for the undertaking. ACHP shall provide FRA with its advice on the 

resolution of the objection within 30 days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to 

reaching a final decision on the dispute, FRA shall prepare a written response that takes into 

account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the signatories and 

consulting parties, including Native American tribes, and provide them with a copy of this 

written response. FRA will then implement any action determined by this dispute resolution 

process and proceed according to its final decision.
Page 18 6/26/2012 revision

 

If ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within 30 days, FRA may make a 

final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final 

decision, FRA shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments 

regarding the dispute from the signatories and consulting parties for the undertaking, and 

provide them and ACHP with a copy of such written response. 

B. Amendment 

1. The signatories to this PA may request that it be amended, whereupon the signatories will 

consult to consider such amendment. This PA may be amended only upon written 

concurrence of all signatory parties. 

2. To address changes in the treatment of specific historic or archeological properties affected 

by the undertaking, MnDOT may propose revisions to the treatment plans or MOAs, as 

appropriate, rather than to this PA. Upon concurrence of the signatories, MnDOT and FRA 

may revise the treatment plans to incorporate the agreed upon changes without executing a 

formal amendment to this PA. An MOA may be amended only upon written concurrence of 

all signatory parties.

3. Revisions to an attachment to this PA would be implemented through consultation and 

include any necessary revisions to the PA itself that may result from modification of an 

attachment. 

 

C. Review and Reporting 

1. The signatories and consulting parties, including Native American tribes, may review 

activities carried out by MnDOT pursuant to this PA. MnDOT shall facilitate this review by 

compiling specific categories of information to document the effectiveness of this PA and by 

making this information available in the form of a written annual Programmatic Agreement 

report. Categories of information shall include, but are not limited to, a summary of actions 

taken under this PA, including all findings and determinations, public objections, and 

inadvertent effects or foreclosures. The range and type of information included by MnDOT 

in the written report and the manner in which this information is organized and presented 

must be such that it facilitates the ability of the reviewing parties to assess accurately the 

degree to which the PA and its manner of implementation constitute an efficient and effective 

program under 36 CFR Part 800. 

2. MnDOT shall prepare the written report of these findings annually following execution of 

this PA. MnDOT shall submit the annual reports to FRA, MnSHPO, and WisSHPO, no later 

than three (3) months following the end of the State fiscal year until all treatment is 

completed. There will be a 30-day period to review and comment on the report. The Annual 

Programmatic Agreement Report will be finalized within 30 days of receipt of comments.
Page 19 6/26/2012 revision

3. MnDOT shall provide that the report herein prescribed is available for public inspection. 

The report will be sent to signatories and consulting parties, including Native American 

tribes, of this PA and any subsequent MOAs, and a copy available to members of the public 

for comment, upon request. 

D. Termination

FRA, MnSHPO, WisSHPO, MnDOT, or WisDOT may terminate this PA by providing 30 

days written notice to the other signatories; the signatories shall consult during the 30-day 

period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would 

avoid termination. Should such consultation result in an agreement on an alternative to 

termination, the signatory parties shall proceed in accordance with that agreement. Should a 

signatory party propose termination of this PA, they will notify the other parties in writing. If 

any of the signatories individually terminates their participation in the PA, then the PA may 

be terminated in its entirety. In the event of termination, then FRA shall either consult in 

accordance with 36 CFR § 800.14(b) to develop a new agreement or request the comments of 

the ACHP pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. Beginning with the date of termination, FRA shall 

ensure that until and unless a new agreement is executed for the actions covered by this PA, 

such undertakings shall be reviewed individually in accordance with 36 CFR §§ 800.4-800.6. 

E. Duration of this Programmatic Agreement

In the event that the terms of this PA are not carried out within 10 years, this PA shall be 

assessed by the signatories to determine if it still needed and working effectively, or whether 

it should be terminated. If the PA is effective and its duration needs to be extended, the 

signatories can decide to extend the duration of the PA. If the signatories determine that the 

PA is effective, but needs revisions, revisions will be made. In the event the signatories 

determine that the PA is not effective and cannot be amended to address concerns, the PA

shall be considered null and void, memorialized in a letter to the signatories from FRA. If 

FRA or another Federal agency party to this PA chooses to continue with the undertaking, it 

shall re-initiate review of the undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 

F. Execution and Implementation of the Programmatic Agreement

Execution of this PA by FRA, MnDOT, WisDOT, MnSHPO, and WisSHPO and 

implementation of its terms evidence that FRA has taken into account the effects of this 

undertaking on historic properties and afforded ACHP an opportunity to comment. 
Page 20 6/26/2012 revision

SIGNATORY PARTIES

Federal Railroad Administration 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Commissioner Minnesota Department of Transportation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Secretary Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 
Page 21 6/26/2012 revision

CONCURRING PARTY

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 
May 3, 2012 Page A-1

ATTACHMENT A 

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS DELINEATION

An APE for the NLX Corridor has been determined by FRA and MnDOT pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1) 

and taking into account statements by stakeholders and interested parties. MnDOT, using Principal

Investigators (PIs), is responsible for describing and establishing the APE in accordance with the APE 

defined for the corridor (see attached) and the APE delineation guidelines described below, and will sign 

any maps or plans that define or redefine an APE. The APE may be further refined in connection with 

future site specific studies. 

As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), an APE is “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking 

may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and 

may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” 

Different APEs may be established for archeological properties and historic architectural properties: 

Archaeological Properties

For archeological properties, an APE is typically established based on an undertaking’s potential for direct 

effects from ground-disturbing activities. On occasion, archeological sites may also have qualities that 

could be affected indirectly.

The APE for archaeological properties is the area of ground proposed to be disturbed during construction 

of the undertaking, including grading, cut-and-fill, easements, staging areas, utility relocation, borrow 

pits, and biological mitigation areas, if any. 

Traditional cultural properties and cultural landscapes are more likely to be subject to indirect, as well as 

direct effects; thus, in order to include the potential for such effects, the APE for such properties is 

usually broader than the archeological APE. For instance, the first row of potential properties beyond the 

right-of-way may be subject to such effects and thus included in an indirect APE when warranted.

Historic Architectural Properties

The APE for historic architectural properties includes all properties that contain buildings, structures or 

objects more than 50 years of age at the time the intensive survey is completed by the QPIs, as follows:

1. Properties within the proposed right-of-way;

2. Properties where historic materials or associated landscape features would be demolished, 

moved, or altered by construction;

3. Properties near the undertaking where railroad materials, features, and activities HAVE NOT been 

part of their historic setting and where the introduction of visual or audible elements may affect 

the use or characteristics of those properties that would be the basis for their eligibility for listing 

in the National Register; and

4. Properties near the undertaking that were either used by a railroad, served by a railroad, or 

where railroad materials, features, and activities HAVE long been part of their historic setting, but 

only in such cases where the undertaking would result in a substantial change from the historic 

use, access, or noise and vibration levels that were present 50 years ago, or during the period of 

significance of a property, if different.

For the NLX Project, a key phrase in the APE definition in the Section 106 regulations contained within 36 

CFR 800.16(d) is “may...cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties” because many of 
May 3, 2012 Page A-2

the undertakings involve the construction of additional, relocated, and/or high speed rail alongside 

existing railroads. In such cases, potential historic properties near the proposed undertaking historically 

had railroad features, materials, and activities within their setting that contributed to their character, or 

may even have been used by or served by the railroad. For example: 

• The character and use of a historic railroad passenger or freight depot or railroad bridge would 

not change unless it would be put out of service, destroyed, altered, or moved for the 

undertaking;

• The character and use of an industrial building next to existing railroad tracks would not change, 

unless freight railroad service was an important association and the spur lines or loading areas 

would be removed by the undertaking;

• The character and use of buildings would not change if they would be separated from the 

undertaking by an existing railroad; however,

• The character of a non-railroad or non-industrial building would likely change if the building is 

visually sensitive and the proposed undertaking introduces an elevated grade separation or other 

large building or structure; 

• The use of a non-railroad or non-industrial building would likely change if the building is sensitive 

to noise, like a school, museum or library, and the frequency of noise or vibration events from 

passing trains is increased over historic-era railroad events. 

When delineating the APE, the PIs shall follow the identification methodology in Stipulation VI.B., which 

are different for archaeological properties and historic architectural properties. The PIs shall take into 

account the nature of the proposed undertaking and whether or not it has the potential to affect the 

characteristics that might qualify the property for eligibility to the NRHP. Whenever an individual phase is 

revised (e.g., design changes, utility relocation, or additional off-site mitigation areas), the PIs will 

determine if changes require modifying the APE. If an APE proves to be inadequate, MnDOT is 

responsible for informing consulting parties in a timely manner of needed changes. The APE should be 

revised commensurate with the nature and scope of the changed potential effects. 
May 3, 2012 Page A-3

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT RATIONALE

Prepared by: The 106 Group Ltd.

October 25, 2011

Updated: February 27, 2012

The Northern Lights Express (NLX) project is a proposed high-speed passenger railroad from the Twin 

Cities to the Duluth/Superior area. The proposed project is receiving funding from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA); therefore, it must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act; Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; and with other applicable federal and 

state mandates such as the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, and the 

Wisconsin Burial Sites Preservation Law. The purpose of this document is to conduct preliminary analysis 

concerning the potential effects the NLX project may have on historic resources and develop a rationale 

to assist the federal and state agencies in developing an appropriate area of potential effect (APE) for this 

project (see attached maps for current APE). 

The construction and operation of the proposed NLX project will result in a variety of potential effects to 

historic properties; therefore, for the development of an APE, potential effects from various possible 

construction and operation activities were examined. A preferred alternative, Route No. 9, has been 

chosen for the NLX project and approved by the FRA. The route follows the existing Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway from Minneapolis (MTI) northeast to Duluth (Depot). This rail line represents 

the only railroad connection currently in full active service between Minneapolis and Duluth/Superior. The 

corridor roughly parallels State Highways 65 and 23 through Hennepin, Anoka, Isanti, Pine, Carlton, 

Douglas (Wisconsin), and St. Louis counties and terminates in Duluth. 

This route will utilize portions of six historic railroad corridors. These existing railroad lines contain intact 

tracks that will be upgraded from a class 3 to a class 5 line. FRA’s track safety standards establish nine 

specific classes of track (Class 1 to Class 9). The difference between each Class of Track is based on 

progressively more exacting standards for track structure, geometry, and inspection frequency. Each 

Class of Track has a corresponding maximum allowable operating speed for both freight and passenger 

trains. The higher the Class of Track, the greater the allowable track speed and the more stringent track 

safety standards apply. The maximum allowable speed for passenger trains is 60 mph for a Class 3 track 

and 90 mph for a Class 5 track. The upgrades to a Class 5 line can be accomplished through tie 

replacement and ballast improvements, which can be done as maintenance on these line utilizing tie 

replacement trains and ballast placement trains. All work will be performed from the track and will have 

no impacts outside the existing track bed (FRA 2008).

For this project, the project area is defined as the proposed construction footprint, which can be bigger or 

smaller than the existing right-of-way (ROW) depending on the nature of the proposed improvements for 

the project. In addition, the proposed preferred alignment includes construction of new parallel track, 

new bridges associated with new parallel track, and improving/upgrading existing bridges. Therefore, the 

activities examined in developing the APE include the following:

• New track parallel to existing track (e.g., sidings and second mainlines with both tracks 

operational);

• New bridge associated with new parallel track;

• Replacing an existing bridge/underpass;

• Improving/upgrading an existing bridge;

• Using an existing alignment (possible replacement of existing rails, etc.); and 

• Operation of the line.
May 3, 2012 Page A-4

Discussion of the potential effects to specific resources types are described below. 

ARCHAEOLOGY

For the proposed NLX project, the APE for archaeology will include all areas of proposed construction 

activities or other potential ground disturbing activities associated with the project, including equipment 

storage areas and borrow areas. For construction of the railroad corridor itself, it is assumed that the 

construction footprint will not extend beyond the existing railroad ROW and that the only construction 

activity that may be located outside existing ROW may be borrow areas or equipment storage areas, if 

required; however, the location of borrow areas and storage/laydown areas is currently unknown and 

environmental review of these areas will be completed at a later date. 

It is assumed that any modification to the existing railroad grade or to transition to a new alignment (i.e., 

adding new parallel track) will not extend below the existing railroad grade. Therefore, unknown 

archaeological sites that may be located below the existing railroad grade will not be impacted and 

survey of the existing railroad grade will not be required. If Native American burials are known to exist 

below existing grade or within the larger APE then the project will need to comply with Minnesota Private 

Cemeteries Act, 1975 (M.S. 307.08) or the Wisconsin Burial Sites Preservation Law (Wis. Stats. 157.70) 

and the specific situation will be addressed as part of consultation obligations under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

The design of the proposed NLX project is continuing to be refined. As the design of the project 

progresses, if any of the assumptions above should change, then the proposed APE rationale would need 

to be adjusted accordingly. 

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY

For the proposed NLX project, the APE for architectural history needs to account for any physical, 

auditory, atmospheric, or visual impacts to historic properties. The potential effects from each component 

of the proposed project are different and, therefore, a different APE may be needed. The proposed 

project components are still being refined so the purpose of this discussion is to detail the APE associated 

with each component, which will then be combined into one APE based on the nature of the components 

proposed.

The types of effects anticipated may include direct physical and/or vibratory effects, as well as potential 

indirect visual, auditory, and atmospheric effects. Effects may be temporary or permanent. To aid in 

identifying the potential effects the proposed elements of the project may have on architectural history 

properties in order to define an appropriate APE for architectural history, the following was assumed 

based on current project information:

• Construction of the project will not exceed a time period of five years; 

• Construction along the project corridor will generally be intermittent and not continuous at any 

one point along the corridor for the duration of construction; 

• Construction activity will be limited to daytime hours, generally between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 

p.m., when higher noise levels are more acceptable;

• The construction and operation of depots (stations) and other facilities such as parking lots will 

be included in a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process;

• The centerline of any new parallel track will be, at most, 30 feet (ft.) off-set from the centerline 

of the existing railroad track within a corridor;

• According to the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan (December 2007) by Transportation 

Economics & Management System, Inc. the number of freight trains that currently operate along 

the railroad corridors (Route No. 9) with active tracks range from 12 to 60 trains per day. A 

portion of one corridor also sees two intercity passenger trains per day. The maximum number of 

high-speed passenger trains (HSTs) that are proposed to be operated daily along the potential 
May 3, 2012 Page A-5

railroad corridors is eight, which would increase the number of trains along the active lines 

(Route No. 9) by 7 to 25 percent per day. If project assumptions change, portions of this APE 

rationale may need to be revisited and potentially revised; 

• The length of the proposed passenger trains will generally be much shorter than the freight trains 

that are currently operated along the proposed corridors with active tracks. According to the 

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive 

Feasibility Study and Business Plan the proposed passenger trains will not exceed 600 ft. in 

length, whereas the freight trains that currently operate along the active corridors generally 

range from several hundred ft. to over one mile (mi) in length; 

• The proposed passenger trains will be considerably lighter than freight trains and will therefore 

produce considerably less vibrations than freight trains and for shorter durations given their 

shorter lengths and higher speeds; and 

• Except for the noise produced by the horns on the locomotives, which will be the same as freight 

trains, the proposed passenger trains will generally produce less noise and for shorter durations 

in a location compared to a freight train since they will have fewer locomotives and cars, less 

weight, better tracking, and will be shorter in length and operating at higher speeds. 

• The proposed HSTs will travel at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), which is much faster 

than a freight train, so they will have a higher onset rate (approach rate due to their much higher 

speed) compared to freight trains that currently utilize the proposed NLX route. 

The proposed project would traverse a wide array of areas, ranging from densely developed urban areas, 

to small towns, to open prairie and farmland, to forested areas. Similarly, the topography along the line 

will also vary from flatlands to rolling hills. Given the diversity of these areas and their respective 

conditions, the APE may need to vary, depending on the actual circumstances of a place and the activity 

proposed for that particular location. The following sections will describe a rationale for the development 

of an APE for each anticipated construction or operation activity, as detailed earlier in this document. 

Since the design of the project is still being refined, the discussion will generally focus on identifying the 

maximum limits of an APE, rather than a minimum which would need to be increased in places to address 

unique conditions. There may be locations where conditions may allow for a reduced APE from the 

maximum described below (e.g. more dense vegetation reducing visibility); however, this will be 

confirmed based on visual inspection of the viewshed during field survey. 

New Track Parallel to an Existing Track 

This action would entail laying new track(s) parallel to existing tracks within an existing railroad ROW 

(operation of the line is discussed under the heading: Operation of the Line). This alternative could 

potentially result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the new 

tracks. Noise associated with the construction of a new parallel track within the existing ROW would 

include noise from construction activities, and from increased vehicular traffic to deliver, load, and unload 

construction materials. While the exact dB levels associated with construction activities has not been 

determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that dB levels associated with 

construction of a new parallel track within an existing alignment will exceed acceptable levels as 

established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 500 ft. on either side of the project area. 

Construction of new parallel tracks would also result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading of materials, earth, and ballast dumping and 

storage. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and would vary according to construction activity and 

atmospheric conditions. Any potential increase in dust associated with construction of parallel track within 

an existing alignment would be temporary and amounts generated would not likely be any greater than 

dust generated by wind storms in rural areas. In urban areas, the existing built environment (e.g. 

buildings and structures) would block and disrupt winds and further dissipate any dust generated during 
May 3, 2012 Page A-6

construction. Therefore, the area that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should 

be limited to no more 500 ft. and effects, if any, would be temporary. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical and/or vibratory effects and potential indirect visual 

effects to the corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. Direct 

physical effects would be limited to the project area and alterations to the existing roadbed. Vibrations 

associated with new track(s) parallel to existing tracks within an existing railroad ROW could include 

vibrations from ground disturbing activity and from trucks, heavy equipment, rail-based equipment, and 

from the loading and unloading of materials in the project area. Vibrations from such activities would 

most likely be minimal and would not likely impact an area more than 500 ft. from the project area. 

Therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area would be sufficient to address vibrations 

associated with the construction of new track(s) parallel to existing tracks within an existing railroad 

ROW. 

Permanent indirect visual effects may vary; however, provided that the grades, elevations, and profiles of 

the parallel track are similar to the existing roadbed in the corridor, the construction of a parallel track 

within an existing ROW would have a relatively minor affect on the visual character of the corridor, 

especially in relatively flat areas where the alignment cannot be viewed from above. As a result, the area 

that would be visually affected would be somewhat limited. Since the track will be placed parallel to the 

existing track offset no more than 30 ft. from the existing, and it is assumed that the height, grades, and 

profile of the new parallel track are not significantly different from the existing roadbed (e.g. height of 

the new and rebuilt roadbed is not changed more than a 2.5 ft. from the height of the existing roadbed), 

based on other railroad projects in Minnesota, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area would 

be sufficient to account for potential visual effects. 

However, if grades, cuts, and fills are modified, the associated changes in these elements of the existing 

corridor may alter, and increase the visual prominence of the corridor and would thereby impact a larger 

area. If the construction of a parallel track results in height and profile differences between the existing 

roadbed that exceeds 5 to 10 ft., depending on the location and terrain of the area (10 ft. in hilly and/or 

heavily forested areas and 5 ft. in generally flat and/or open areas), a larger APE would be required to 

account for the increased visual effect. In these instances, an APE of 0.125 (one-eighth) mi (660 feet) is 

recommended to account for changes to views of the corridor and the landscape. 

In summary, the APE for laying new track(s) parallel to existing tracks should include 500 ft. on either 

side of the project area, assuming that the grade change of the new alignment is within 2.5 ft. of the 

height of the existing track. If the proposed alignment will have a grade change more than 2.5 ft. from 

the height of the existing track, an APE of 0.125 mi around the project area is recommended. 

New Bridge Associated with New Parallel Track

This action would entail the construction of a new bridge(s) associated with a new parallel track(s) 

located adjacent to existing bridges within an existing railroad ROW. This alternative could potentially 

result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed bridge. Noise associated with bridge construction would include noise from construction 

activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to the site, loading and unloading construction 

materials, and potentially pile driving. While the exact dB levels associated with construction activities has 

not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that dB levels associated with 

construction of a new bridge will exceed acceptable levels as established by the State of Minnesota in 

areas more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Construction of a new bridge would result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading materials, and storage of construction 
May 3, 2012 Page A-7

materials and equipment. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and vary according to atmospheric 

conditions; however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the project area 

increased. Therefore, the area that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be 

limited to no more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include potential direct effects from vibrations and indirect visual effects to the 

corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. Vibrations associated 

with new bridge construction could include vibrations from rail-based equipment, trucks and heavy 

equipment, and from loading and unloading materials. Vibrations from such activities would most likely 

be minimal and would not likely impact an area more than 500 ft. from the project area. However, pile 

driving associated with new bridge construction would result in greater vibrations that would have a 

wider area of impact. 

Vibrations from pile driving can result in two types of potential effects: (a) real damage to property and 

(b) perception by humans (Transportation Research Board [TRB] 1997:1). For the development of an 

APE for architectural history properties related to the construction of the proposed NLX line, the primary 

consideration is real damage to historic properties as a result of vibrations, which can take the form of 

structural damage, including cracking and breaking of structural elements or ground settlement. 

Structural damage from impact driving can be minimized or eliminated by alternatives such as vibratory 

driving, or changing to auger cast (TRB 1997:1). However, for the development of an architectural APE 

for pile driving, it was assumed that the project will utilize impact driving.

A number of studies have been conducted on the impacts of vibrations and pile installations on adjacent 

structures, including historic buildings. Studies have been done to determine (a) the maximum safe limits 

of vibrations that will not result in damage to adjacent structures, including historic buildings, during 

construction projects, and (b) the area of influence for pile driving that falls within these maximum 

acceptable vibration limits. Many agencies have established maximum safe limits for vibrations as 

described below. 

Based on its own studies, the non-extant U.S. Bureau of Mines recommended a “safe blasting limit” of 50 

millimeters(mm)/second (sec) (2 inches[in]/sec) peak particle velocity (ppv) for mining activity (CTC & 

Associates and WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). Given the many inherent similarities in terms of groundborne vibrations between blasting and pile driving, over time, this maximum limit has also been 

commonly applied to construction vibration and is widely viewed by many engineers as being stringent 

enough to prevent damage to most surrounding structures, regardless of age or fragility (CTC & 

Associates and WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). 

While 50 mm/sec (2 in/sec) is a commonly used, a number of federal agencies and state transportation 

departments across the country have established significantly lower (more conservative) thresholds for 

projects subject to their oversight. The National Park Service (NPS) for example has set a maximum limit 

of 0.2 in/sec (5 mm/sec) ppv for structures that exhibit significant levels of historic architectural 

importance, or that are in a poor or deteriorated state of maintenance, which is one tenth of 50 mm/sec, 

and a slightly higher limit of 0.5 in/sec (12 mm/sec) ppv for all other historic sites (Sedovic 1984:59). The 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has established criteria for assessing potential vibration damage to 

structures based on the type of building construction (Table 1) (FTA 2006). 

FIGURE 1. FTA CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA 

Building Category Maximum PPV

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no 

plaster)

0.5 in/sec (12 

mm/sec)

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 in/sec (7 

mm/sec)
May 3, 2012 Page A-8

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry 

buildings

0.2 in/sec (5 

mm/sec)

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration 

damage

0.12 in/sec (3 

mm/sec)

A number of state departments of transportation have also established standards for projects they build 

or fund. For example, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has set an “architectural 

damage risk level” for continuous vibrations (peak vertical particle velocity of 5 mm/sec (0.2 in/sec). For 

ruins, ancient monuments, and historical buildings and structures in poor condition, Caltrans recommends 

an even lower upper limit of 2 mm/sec (0.08 in/sec) for continuous vibrations (CTC & Associates and 

WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). 

Given the geographic area the proposed NLX line will traverse and its developmental history, it is highly 

probable that a significant percentage of the architectural history resources along the proposed NLX 

project corridor are non-engineered timber and masonry buildings that are also likely to contain plaster. 

Since these types of structures are more susceptible to damage from vibrations than engineered and 

reinforced structures, it is recommended that the APE for architectural history include all areas subject to 

a ppv of 5 mm/sec (0.2 in/sec) or greater as a result of vibrations related to construction activity, 

including pile driving to encompass the greatest range of potential vibration impacts to historic structures. 

This number corresponds with both (a) the NPS’s recommended maximum for both deteriorated historic 

resources and resources with architectural significance, and (b) the FTA’s standard for non-engineered 

timber and masonry buildings. However, in the event that the architectural history survey for the 

proposed project identifies extremely deteriorated, highly fragile architectural history properties that are 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it is recommended that a vibration study be completed 

for these resources and attempts made to limit vibrations in these isolated locations to 3 mm/sec (0.12 

in/sec). 

When looking at the correlation between distance from the point of impact of pile driving and the 

potential for damaged to adjacent structures, according to the TRB, experience has shown that “direct 

damage to structures is not likely to occur at a distance from the pile of (a) more than 15 meters for piles 

15 meters long or less, or (b) one pile length for piles longer than 15 meters” (TRB 1997:1). However, 

the TRB does note that “in few cases has there been direct damage to a structure when the pile driving 

was done at a distance of at least one pile length from the target (TRB 1997:43). The main exception to 

the one pile length distance “rule of thumb” guideline is typically related to the settlement of soils 

densified by vibrations, resulting in settlement that can take place at distances greater than one pile 

length (TRB 1997:43). To account for the potential presence of loose, clean sands in the zone of 

influence, the TRB recommends using a zone of influence of up to 400 meters from the pile driving. This 

distance translates to 1,312.34 ft., or approximately 0.25 mi.

Based on this analysis, it is recommended that an APE of 0.25 mi from the project area be used to 

account for all potential types of vibrations associated with bridge construction. In areas with sound soil, 

where a soil survey confirms there is no soil prone to settlement, the APE to account for impacts to 

architectural resources can be reduced to the length of the longest pile used in this particular area. 

Permanent indirect visual effects may vary; however, it is assumed that if the new bridge(s) will be of a 

similar type, scale, height, and proportion, and constructed of similar materials as the existing parallel 

bridge, although the new bridge(s) may be visible from some distance, the area that would be 

significantly affected visually would be somewhat limited. Therefore, an APE of 0.125 mi is 

recommended. If the design of the new bridge(s) will be out of scale and proportion from the existing 

parallel bridge(s) and/or is a significantly different type, or constructed of different materials, its visual 

prominence would affect a larger area and a larger APE may be required. 
May 3, 2012 Page A-9

In summary, the APE for the construction of a new bridge(s) associated with a new parallel track(s) 

located parallel to existing bridges within an existing railroad ROW assumes that the proposed bridge(s) 

would be of similar type, design, scale, height, and proportion and constructed of similar materials as the 

existing parallel bridge(s). Therefore, the APE should include a 0.25 mi buffer around the project area to 

account for all potential visual effects, as well as account for potential effects to historic properties from 

potential vibrations related to pile driving during construction. Specific details relating to the construction 

of new bridges are still being developed and if the design for a proposed new bridge(s) is not of a similar 

type, scale, height, and proportion, or constructed of similar materials as the existing parallel bridge, a 

larger APE may be required to account for potential increased indirect visual effects.

Replacing an Existing Bridge/Underpass 

This action would entail removal of an existing bridge or underpass and replacing it with a newly 

constructed bridge or underpass. This alternative would result in both temporary and permanent direct 

and indirect effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed bridge/underpass. Noise associated with bridge/underpass replacement would include noise 

from demolition and construction activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to the site, and 

loading and unloading construction materials. While the exact dB levels associated with replacing an 

existing bridge/underpass has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated 

that dB levels associated with construction of a replacement bridge/underpass will exceed acceptable 

levels as established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

The demolition of the existing bridge/underpass and the construction of a new bridge/underpass would 

result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter associated with earthmoving activity, loading 

and unloading materials, and storage of construction materials and equipment. Dust levels in the air 

would be intermittent and vary according to atmospheric conditions; however, the level of dust in the air 

would disperse as distance from the project area increased. Therefore, the area that could potentially be 

adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited to no more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical effects to the existing bridge/underpass due to its 

removal and to the existing corridor and railroad roadbed, as well as direct vibratory effects to the 

corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. Vibrations associated 

with replacement bridge/underpass construction could include vibrations from rail-based equipment, 

trucks, heavy equipment, and from loading and unloading materials, which based on similar projects 

would be limited to an area 500 ft. from the project area. The demolition of the existing 

bridge/underpass would result in greater vibrations that would have a wider area of impact; an APE of 

0.125 mi from the project area for this action is therefore recommended. However, as indicated in the 

section above for new bridges, pile driving associated with new bridge/underpass construction would 

result in greater vibrations that would impact a wider area; therefore, if pile driving is required for 

construction of the replacement bridge/underpass, an APE of 0.25 mi from the project area is 

recommended to account for all potential types of vibrations associated with bridge construction. 

Permanent effects would also include permanent indirect visual effects; however, the area affected may 

vary. It is assumed that any replacement bridge will be constructed along the same alignment as the 

existing bridge and will be of a similar type, scale and design, and utilizes similar materials as the existing 

bridge and, therefore, the area that would be significantly affected visually would be somewhat limited. 

Based on similar projects, an APE of 0.125 mi is recommended. However, where a new design is used, its 

visual prominence could potentially affect a larger area and in these instances a larger APE may be 

required to account for potential increased indirect visual effects. 

In summary, the APE for the removal and replacement of an existing bridge/underpass with a new 

bridge/underpass within an existing railroad ROW, provided the new bridge/underpass is of a similar 
May 3, 2012 Page A-10

type, scale and design and utilizes similar materials as the existing bridge/underpass, should include a 

0.25 mi buffer around the project area to account for all potential direct and indirect effects. Specific 

details relating to the construction of new bridges are still being developed and if a new design is used 

for the replacement bridge/underpass, a larger APE may be required to account for potential additional 

indirect visual effects. 

Improving/Upgrading an Existing Bridge 

This action would entail improvements and upgrades to existing bridge(s) within a railroad corridor. This 

alternative could potentially result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed project. Noise associated with bridge improvement/upgrades would include increased noise 

from construction activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to the site, loading and 

unloading construction materials, and potentially pile driving. While the exact dB levels associated with 

construction activities has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that 

dB levels associated with bridge improvements/upgrades will exceed acceptable levels as established by 

the State of Minnesota in areas more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Improving/upgrading a bridge would also result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading materials, and storage of construction 

materials and equipment. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and vary according to atmospheric 

conditions; however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the project area 

increased. Since the proposed improvements will not include pier adjustments or pile driving, the area 

that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited to no more than 0.125 

mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical effects to the railroad corridor and the 

improved/upgraded bridge(s) and potential direct vibratory and indirect visual effects to the corridor and 

other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. According to information provided 

by SRF in March 2011, physical changes to the existing bridge(s) within the corridor will not include 

alterations to the approaches, abutments, cuts, the bridge piers, or to the railroad roadbed. In addition, it 

is assumed that any changes to the bridge spans will allow the bridges to maintain their appearance and 

retain a similar type, scale, height, proportion, and materials. Therefore, direct physical effects would be 

limited to the project area. Vibrations associated with bridge improvements/upgrades could include 

vibrations from trucks, heavy equipment, rail-based equipment, and from the loading and unloading of 

materials in the project area. Vibrations from such activities would most likely be minimal and would not 

likely impact an area more than 500 ft. from the project area. However, if pile driving is associated with 

bridge improvement/upgrades, vibrations from it could potentially result in greater vibrations and impact 

a wider area than other construction activities. According to information provided SRF in March 2011, 

proposed bridge improvements would not require significant pier adjustments, if any, and no pile driving 

is anticipated; therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area is recommended to account 

for all vibratory effects. 

Indirect visual effects may vary; however, it is assumed that the improvements/upgrades to the bridge(s) 

will allow the bridge to maintain its appearance and retain a similar type, scale, height, proportion, and 

materials. Therefore, although the improved/upgraded bridge(s) may be visible from some distance in 

certain locations, the area that would be significantly affected visually would be somewhat limited. In this 

case an APE of 0.125 mi would be recommended, assuming that the improvements/upgrades to the 

bridge(s) are in scale and proportion and material types to the existing bridge(s). If the proposed 

improvements/upgrades include replacement spans that will be of a different type, design, scale, 

materials, or proportions that the existing spans, a larger APE may be required. 
May 3, 2012 Page A-11

In summary, the APE for improvements and upgrades to existing bridge(s) within a railroad corridor 

should include a 0.125 mi buffer around the project area, and assumes the existing spans will be 

improved/upgraded with in-kind materials that would be consistent with the existing bridge(s). If the 

proposed improvements/upgrades include replacement spans that will be of a different type, design, 

scale, materials, or proportions that the existing spans, a larger APE may be required. 

 

Using an Existing Alignment 

This action would entail utilizing existing tracks along an existing railroad corridor (operation of the line is 

discussed under the heading: Operation of the Line). According to information provided by SRF in March 

and August 2011, the existing railroad lines contain intact tracks that will be upgraded from a class 3 to a 

class 5 line. The upgrades can be accomplished through tie replacement and ballast improvements, which 

can be done as part of line maintenance, utilizing tie replacement trains and ballast placement trains. All 

work will be performed from the track and would have no impacts outside the existing track bed will be 

required. This alternative may result in both temporary and permanent direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during potential replacement or 

improvement of existing tracks. Noise associated with potential new tracks may include noise from 

construction activities; however, since the upgrades will be accomplished using tie and ballast 

replacement trains, noise effects associated with delivering, loading, and unloading construction materials 

should be minimal. While the exact dB levels associated with construction activities has not been 

determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that dB levels associated with 

construction of a new tracks on an existing alignment will exceed acceptable levels as established by the 

State of Minnesota in areas more than 500 ft. from the project area. 

The use of an existing alignment may result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading of materials. Dust levels in the air associated 

with this potential activity would be intermittent and would vary depending upon atmospheric conditions; 

however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the project area increased. Since the 

repair/replacement of existing tracks will be completed using tie and ballast replacement trains from the 

existing rail corridor and no changes to grade profiles is proposed, the area that could potentially be 

adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited to no more than 500 ft. from the project area. 

According to information provided by SRF in March and August 2011, the proposed upgrade of the 

existing alignment will not include any changes to the existing grade or height and profile of the existing 

track; therefore, permanent visual effects should be relatively minimal and, based on other railroad 

projects in Minnesota, should be confined to an area within 500 ft. of the project area. Permanent 

vibratory effects associated with repair or replacement of existing tracks could include vibrations from 

ground disturbing activity and from rail-based equipment loading and unloading materials in the project 

area. Vibrations from such activities would most likely be minimal and would not likely impact an area 

more than 500 ft. from the project area. Given the potential range of vibrations, an APE of 500 ft. on 

either side of the project area would be sufficient to address vibrations associated with the repair or 

replacement of existing tracks. 

In summary, the APE for utilizing existing tracks along an existing railroad corridor should include a 500 

foot buffer on either side of the project area. 

Operation of the Line 

Operation of the line could potentially result in permanent direct and indirect effects to historic 

properties. Potential permanent direct effects associated with an increase in vibrations from the trains 

and associated vehicular traffic include impacts to historic properties that could potentially result in their 

structural degradation and compromise overtime. However, as stated in the assumptions section, the 

vibrations caused from the operation of high-speed passenger trains, which will have fewer cars and will 

be lighter in weight, will be less than the existing freight trains. While the operation of the proposed line 
May 3, 2012 Page A-12

will result in increases of train traffic and a slight increase in the frequency of train vibrations, the overall 

increases will be minimal. 

Permanent indirect effects associated with operation of the line include noise due to increased train 

traffic, and increased vehicular traffic associated with the trains. Additional noise resulting from individual 

trains (operation and horns), and associated noise such as crossing signals may also potentially result in 

permanent indirect effects. Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is 

characterized by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric pressure. The basic 

parameters of environmental noise that affect human response are (1) intensity or level, (2) frequency 

content and (3) variation with time (Johnson et al. 2011).

Several federal and state agencies have developed standards for evaluating noise impacts; however, 

since this project is subject to FRA approval, its criteria were used to determine an APE for noise. The 

FRA has established allowable noise levels for trains and train horns. The maximum allowed noise level 

for locomotives manufactured after December 31, 1979 and for moving trains is 90 decibels (dB) (FRA 

2000). The minimum noise level for train horns is 96 dB and the maximum is 110 dB (FRA n.d.). As 

traditional diesel powered train sets, the HSTs will need to adhere to these standards. As noted in the 

assumptions section, the HSTs will be shorter, lighter and faster than the freight trains that currently 

utilize the line, so noise from their movement typically will not be greater than existing higher speed 

freight trains on the proposed line. However, a noise and vibration impact study for the proposed project 

prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson (HMM&M) in April 2011, notes that an important characteristic 

of the noise from HSTs is the onset rate of the sound signature, which is the average rate of change of 

increasing sound pressure level in decibels per second (dB/sec) during a single noise event (Johnson et 

al. 2011:2). The rapid approach of an HST is accompanied by a sudden increase in noise for a receiver 

near the tracks. Sounds that have faster onset rates can cause more annoyance than sounds with slower 

variation or steady noise with the same noise level. The relationship between speed and distance defines 

locations where the onset rate for high-speed train operations may cause surprise or startle (Johnson et 

al. 2011:2-3).

According to the study, the maximum speed of the HSTs along the NLX corridor is 110 mph. Based on 

this speed, the area for potential for surprise or “startle” includes all areas within 22 ft. of the track 

centerline (Johnson et al. 2011:3).

This study also looked at overall noise impacts using the FRA’s criteria, which are “based on welldocumented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a 

sliding scale” (Johnson et al. 2011). The FRA criteria rely on the noise sensitivity levels of different land 

uses to determine impacts (Table 2). FRA criteria also include two levels of impact: severe impact and 

moderate impact. A severe impact is when project-generated noise is expected to cause a significant 

percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and normally requires mitigation. A 

moderate impact is when the change in the cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people, but may 

not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. In these areas mitigation may 

or may not be required, depending on other factors, including existing noise levels, predicted level of 

increase over existing noise levels, the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise 

sensitivity of the properties, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, community views and the cost 

of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels (Johnson et al. 2011:6-7).

TABLE 1. LAND USE CATEGORIES AND METRICS FOR HST NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA

Land Use 

Category Description of Land Use Category

1 

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category 

includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor 

amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with 
May 3, 2012 Page A-13

significant outdoor use.

2 

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost 

importance.

3 

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes 

schools, libraries and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such 

activities as speech, meditation and concentration on reading material. Buildings with 

interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, 

recording studios and concert halls fall into this category, as well as places for meditation 

or study associated with cemeteries, monuments and museums. Certain historical sites, 

parks and recreational facilities are also included.

Source: Johnson et al. 2011, from Federal Railroad Administration, 2005

Using FRA criteria, the HMM&M study assessed the overall impacts from HST noise using a “source-pathreceiver” framework where the “source” generates noise levels that depends on the type of source (e.g., 

HSTs) and its operating characteristics (e.g., speed), the “receiver” is the noise-sensitive land use (e.g., a 

house or school) exposed to noise from the source, and the “path” between the source and the receiver 

is where the noise is reduced by distance, intervening buildings and topography (Johnson et al. 2011). 

During the study representative sites in sensitive land use areas along the proposed NLX line were 

monitored to (a) characterize existing baseline noise conditions and (b) determine the level of impact 

from the proposed project. Monitoring sites ranged from 10 ft. to 474 ft. from the proposed NLX tracks 

(Johnson et al. 2011). While the study did not specifically look at historic properties, it identified a total of 

61 severe noise impacts and 289 moderate noise impacts to sites up to 459 ft. from the proposed NLX 

tracks (Johnson et al. 1011). Based on this study, at a minimum, the APE should include areas within 459 

ft. of the centerlines of the proposed NLX tracks. However, since this study did not specifically consider 

impacts to historic properties where lower noise levels may be important aspects of their significance and 

historic integrity, a slightly larger APE is recommended. Therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the 

project area is recommended to account for potential impacts from noise related to operation of HSTs to 

architectural history resources. 

In summary, the operation of the line would be a compatible use with the historical and current function 

of the area and associated rail corridors. Therefore, the APE for operation of the line, separate from the 

associated new construction, is recommended as 500 ft. on either side of the project area. 

Other Associated Features 

As noted previously the construction and operation of the proposed line would necessitate the 

construction of additional facilities such as repair and maintenance buildings; passenger stations; ticket 

booths; and parking lots. The construction of these associated facilities and their potential effect(s) will 

be addressed through a separate NEPA process. 
May 3, 2012 Page A-14

REFERENCES CITED

CTC & Associates, and WisDOT RTD Program

2003 Construction Vibration and Historic Buildings. Transportation Synthesis Report. Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation, Madison, WI.

Federal Railroad Administration

n.d. Federal Railroad Administration Train Horn Fact Sheet. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/TRAIN_HORN_RULE_FactSheet.pdf, accessed 

January 5, 2011.

2000 Railroad Noise Emissions Compliance Regulation, [49CFR210]. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/173.shtml, accessed January 5, 2011.

Federal Railroad Administration

2008 Federal Track Safety Standards Fact Sheet. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/Track_Standards_fact_sheet_FINAL.pdf, accessed 

February 27, 2012

Federal Transit Administration

2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation, 

Office of Planning and Environment. Washington, DC.

Johnson, Timothy M., Ruth Anne Mazur, and Carl E. Hanson

2011 Northern Lights Express Environmental Assessment: Noise and Vibration Technical Report.

Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Burlington, MA.

Sedovic, Walter

1984 Assessing the Effect of Vibration on Historic Buildings. Bulletin for the Association for 

Preservation Technology 16(3-4):52-61.

Transportation Research Board

1997 Dynamic Effects of Pile Installations on Adjacent Structures. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway 

Practice 253. Washington, DC.
May 3, 2012 Page B-1

ATTACHMENT B 

NLX DOCUMENTATION AND FORMAT GUIDELINES

PURPOSE

The purpose of the NLX program method for evaluation of cultural resources is to describe, in greater 

detail, how the FRA and MnDOT will implement the Section 106 process for the NLX Corridor and each 

site specific project and ensure that the identification and evaluation of cultural resources is conducted in 

accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (Standards and Guidelines) (48 CFR 44716-44742) and 36 CFR 800.4. Historic Properties 

Surveys conducted in the State of Minnesota will adhere to professional guidance provided in MnSHPO’s 

Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota and Guidelines for History/Architecture Projects in 

Minnesota, and MnDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit Project and Report Requirements, as appropriate.

Historic Properties Surveys conducted in the State of Wisconsin will adhere to professional guidance in 

WisSHPO’s Historical and Architectural Survey Manual and the Wisconsin Archaeological survey’s 

Archaeological Survey Guidelines, as appropriate. Historic Properties Surveys that include archaeological 

investigations in Minnesota and Wisconsin on non-federal publicly owned land shall be conducted under a 

State Archaeologist’s Permit (Minnesota § 138.31-.42 and WIS. § 44.47).

The historic properties that should be identified include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

maintained by the Secretary of Interior. This includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to 

such district, site, building, structure, or object (16 U.S.C. Section 470(w)(5)). The term includes 

properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe or organization that meet the 

National Register criteria. Properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register can be properties that 

are formally determined as such in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of Interior and all other 

properties that meet the National Register criteria. The level of identification needed varies depending on 

the nature of the property or property type, the nature of the agency’s authority, and the nature of the 

proposed undertaking’s possible effects on the property.

METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) would be delineated as described in Stipulation VI.A and Attachment 

A, using the best professional judgment of the PIs and taking into account historic property sensitivity 

and the effects that would occur from construction and operation of the undertaking. An APE Map 

showing the most current engineering available for the undertaking and the boundary delineated by PIs 

would be submitted to MnSHPO for projects with the potential to affect historic properties in Minnesota, 

and to WisSHPO for projects with the potential to affect historic properties in Wisconsin. The APE maps 

will be sent along with the Survey Report (SR). The APE maps would be on an aerial base at an 

appropriate scale and indicate whether the project is at-grade, elevated, or in tunnel configuration. 

In consultation with the MnSHPO, WisSHPO and other parties to the Section 106 process, including 

Native American tribes, FRA and MnDOT will identify resources, determine eligibility, and treat any 

adverse effects, as outlined in 36 CFR Part 800 following guidance developed by the National Park Service 

and in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation 1983 (48 FR 44716, as amended) as enumerated below: 

• To identify known locations of historic properties within the APE, review the records for 

previously recorded archaeological properties and historic architectural properties at MnSHPO 

and WisSHPO. Review previous survey technical reports conducted within the APE for 

historic contexts, bibliography, and determination of significance of sites. Review historic 

USGS maps. Review properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the 

respective State Registers of Historic Places. 
May 3, 2012 Page B-2

• Review survey findings conducted by local governments, historical societies, or historic 

preservation organizations, local historic landmark or monument designations, and any other 

inventories that may help identify or establish the significance of historic properties.

• Review subdivision maps, assessor maps, county/city directories, utility records, building 

permits, photographs, newspapers, diaries/journals, architectural drawings, Agency Records, 

Residential- and Commercial-Building Records, oral histories, thesis/dissertations, and 

preferred local and credible history studies. Research should be conducted with the 

appropriate agencies, knowledgeable individuals, local and regional historical societies, 

archives, and libraries. 

• Develop relevant historic themes and contexts for the identification and evaluation efforts of 

historic properties within the APE. Use National Register Bulletin No. 15 for guidance.

• Employ standard archaeological inventory methods. Conduct presence/absence testing, if 

necessary, in areas where subsurface remains may be present. For resources that cannot be 

avoided conduct test excavations to determine resource significance in accordance with the 

research design. 

• Consult with interested Native American Tribe(s) and other cultural groups to identify and 

evaluate any potential TCPs and cultural landscapes that could be affected by the project 

following the methods outlined in the National Register Bulletin 38 and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, respectively. 

• Perform an intensive survey to identify, record, and evaluate architectural properties adjacent 

to the proposed alignment, stations and support facilities built within the time period 

identified in the plan to document and inventory all historic buildings, structures, objects, 

districts, and cultural landscapes in sufficient detail to permit evaluation for the NRHP (per 

Section 106 of the NHPA). Use field maps at an appropriate scale that have delineated parcel 

boundaries, APE boundaries, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), street names, prominent 

natural and man-made features, and previously recorded sites. Documentation and 

evaluation efforts will follow the guidelines of National Register Bulletin No. 15. Private 

spaces (i.e., building interiors), suburban backyards, and restricted areas will not be 

surveyed. Surveys will occur from public vantage points, and if access is infeasible, then the 

property will be evaluated solely on available information or right-of-entry will be coordinated 

by MnDOT. 

TECHNICAL REPORTS

• After completion of the archaeological and historic architectural research, inventories and 

evaluations, and tribal consultations prepare reports to document the findings and 

identification effort, and if any historic properties are identified for an undertaking, prepare a 

report to analyze the effects of the undertaking. Technical reports will be submitted to 

MnSHPO for undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties in the State of 

Minnesota. Technical Reports will be submitted to WisSHPO for undertakings with the 

potential to affect historic properties in the State of Wisconsin. All submittals to MnSHPO and 

WisSHPO shall be in paper format 
May 3, 2012 Page C-1 

ATTACHMENT C 

REQUESTS FOR TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Mr. Mike Wiggins, Jr., Chairperson

Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

Ms. Edith Leoso, THPO

Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

Mr. Kevin Leecy, Chairman

Bois Forte Reservation Tribal Council

Mr. Anthony Reider, President

Flandreau Santee Sioux

Ms. Karen Diver, Chairwoman

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

Mr. Mike Alloway, Tribal Office

Forest County Potawatomi Community 

of Wisconsin 

Mr. A.T. Stafne, Tribal Chair

Fort Peck Tribes

Mr. Curley Youpee, Director

Cultural Resources Department

Fort Peck Tribes

Ms. Vicky Raske, THPO

Grand Portage Band of Chippewa 

Indians

Mr. Norman Des Champe, Chairman

Grand Portage Band of Chippewa 

Indians

Mr. Warren Swartz, President

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Mr. Gordon Thayer, Chairperson

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Mr. Jerry Smith, THPO

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin 

Mr. Tom Maulson, President

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Ms. Melinda Young, THPO

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

Ms. giiwegiizhigookway Martin, THPO

Lac Vieux Desert Band 

Ketegitigaaning Ojibwe Nation

Mr. Arthur LaRose, Chairman

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe

Mr. Gabe Prescott, Chairman

Lower Sioux Indian Community

Mr. Dave Grignon, THPO

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin 

Ms. Marge Anderson, Chief Executive

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Ms. NatalieWeyaus, THPO

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe

Mr. Leroy Spang, Chairperson

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Ms. Victoria Winfrey, President

Prairie Island Community Council

Mr. Steve Ortiz, Chairman

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

Ms. Rose Gurnoe-Soulier, Chairperson

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians

Mr. Larry Balber, THPO 

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 

Mr. Floyd Jourdain Jr., Chairman

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

Mr. Jonathan Buffalo, NAGPRA Rep.

Sac and Fox of the Mississippi in Iowa

Ms. Jane Nioce

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in 

Kansas and Nebraska 

Ms. Sandra Massey, NAGPRA Rep.

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

Mr. Roger Trudell, Chairperson 

Santee Sioux Nation

Mr. Stanley Crooks, Chairperson

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community

Mr. Robert Shepherd, Chairperson

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation

Cultural Resource Director 

Sokaogon Chippewa Community 

Mole Lake Band

Mr. Garland McGeshick, Chairman

Sokaogon Chippewa Mole Lake Band

Mr. Roger Yankton, Sr., Chairperson

Spirit Lake Tribe Nation
May 3, 2012 Page C-2 

Waste'Win Young, THPO

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Mr. Stuart Bearheart, Chairman

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin

Wanda McFaggen, THPO

St. Croix Band Chippewa Indians of 

Wisconsin 

Tex G. Hall, Chairman

Three Affiliated Tribes

Mr. Kade Farres, THPO

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

Kevin Jensvold, Chairman

Upper Sioux Indian Community

Burney Tibbetts, Director of 

Transportation 

White Earth Band of Minnesota 

Chippewa

Dr. Erma Vizenor, Chairwoman

White Earth Band of Minnesota 

Chippewa

Tom McCauley, THPO

White Earth Band of Minnesota 

Chippewa

Ms. Rosemary Berens, THPO

Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the 

MN Chippewa Tribe

Mr. James B. "JB" Weston, THPO

Flandreau Santee Sioux

Mr. LeRoy DeFoe, THPO 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa

Mr. Harold “Gus” Frank, Chairman

Forest County Potawatomi Community 

of Wisconsin 

Ms. Summer Sky Cohen, THPO

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Ms. Gina M. Lemon, THPO

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe

Mr. Anthony Morse, THPO

Lower Sioux Indian Community

Mr. Conrad Fisher, THPO

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Mr. Richard Thomas, THPO

Santee Sioux Nation

Mr. Leonard Wabasha, Director

Cultural Resources Department

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community

Ms. Dianne Desrosiers, THPO

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake 

Traverse Reservation

Mr. Charles W. Murphy, Chairman

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Mr. Elgin Crowsbreast, THPO

Three Affiliated Tribes
May 3, 2012 Page D-1 

ATTACHMENT D 

EXEMPTIONS FROM REVIEW FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 

WITHIN THE NLX CORRIDOR

PURPOSE

Section 106 regulations require a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties (36 CFR 800.4[b][1]). 

The procedures in this attachment concentrate BNSF’s and FRA’s efforts in the review of routine maintenance activities on 

those actions that may reasonably be anticipated to have potential effects to historic properties. This attachment defines 

categories of maintenance activities that do not warrant review unless deemed otherwise in the professional judgment of 

PIs. Exempted properties do not require documentation: 

1. Maintenance of railroad structures within a Historic District where no substantial ground disturbance is required 

and the affected structures are:

a. Not individually listed or eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); or

b. Have not been determined to be a contributing resource to a National Register listed or eligible Historic 

District. 

2. Replacement of ties or rail where there are no changes in vertical or horizontal geometry.

3. Repointing of masonry joints in bridges, culverts, or buildings where the color, texture, aggregate of the grout 

and the rake of the joint matches the existing and the buildings or structures are not individually listed or eligible 

for listing on the NRHP and have not been determined to be a contributing resource to a listed or eligible NRHP 

district. 

4. Replacement of existing security cameras on or adjacent to historic properties where no substantial visual 

alterations to the building or structure result from the replacement.
NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT RATIONALE

Prepared by: The 106 Group Ltd. 

October 25, 2011 

Updated: February 27, 2012 

The Northern Lights Express (NLX) project is a proposed high-speed passenger railroad from the 

Twin Cities to the Duluth/Superior area. The proposed project is receiving funding from the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); therefore, it must comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; and with 

other applicable federal and state mandates such as the Minnesota Historic Sites Act, Minnesota 

Private Cemeteries Act, and the Wisconsin Burial Sites Preservation Law. The purpose of this 

document is to conduct preliminary analysis concerning the potential effects the NLX project may 

have on historic resources and develop a rationale to assist the federal and state agencies in 

developing an appropriate area of potential effect (APE) for this project (see attached maps for 

current APE). 

The construction and operation of the proposed NLX project will result in a variety of potential 

effects to historic properties; therefore, for the development of an APE, potential effects from 

various possible construction and operation activities were examined. A preferred alternative, Route 

No. 9, has been chosen for the NLX project and approved by the FRA. The route follows the 

existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway from Minneapolis (MTI) northeast 

to Duluth (Depot). This rail line represents the only railroad connection currently in full active 

service between Minneapolis and Duluth/Superior. The corridor roughly parallels State Highways 65 

and 23 through Hennepin, Anoka, Isanti, Pine, Carlton, Douglas (Wisconsin), and St. Louis counties 

and terminates in Duluth. 

This route will utilize portions of six historic railroad corridors. These existing railroad lines contain 

intact tracks that will be upgraded from a class 3 to a class 5 line. FRA’s track safety standards 

establish nine specific classes of track (Class 1 to Class 9). The difference between each Class of 

Track is based on progressively more exacting standards for track structure, geometry, and 

inspection frequency. Each Class of Track has a corresponding maximum allowable operating speed 

for both freight and passenger trains. The higher the Class of Track, the greater the allowable track 

speed and the more stringent track safety standards apply. The maximum allowable speed for 

passenger trains is 60 mph for a Class 3 track and 90 mph for a Class 5 track. The upgrades to a 

Class 5 line can be accomplished through tie replacement and ballast improvements, which can be 

done as maintenance on these line utilizing tie replacement trains and ballast placement trains. All 

work will be performed from the track and will have no impacts outside the existing track bed (FRA 

2008). 

For this project, the project area is defined as the proposed construction footprint, which can be 

bigger or smaller than the existing right-of-way (ROW) depending on the nature of the proposed 

improvements for the project. In addition, the proposed preferred alignment includes construction 

of new parallel track, new bridges associated with new parallel track, and improving/upgrading 

existing bridges. Therefore, the activities examined in developing the APE include the following: 
 New track parallel to existing track (e.g., sidings and second mainlines with both tracks 

operational); 

 New bridge associated with new parallel track; 

 Replacing an existing bridge/underpass; 

 Improving/upgrading an existing bridge; 

 Using an existing alignment (possible replacement of existing rails, etc.); and 

 Operation of the line. 

Discussion of the potential effects to specific resources types are described below. 

ARCHAEOLOGY

For the proposed NLX project, the APE for archaeology will include all areas of proposed 

construction activities or other potential ground disturbing activities associated with the project, 

including equipment storage areas and borrow areas. For construction of the railroad corridor itself, 

it is assumed that the construction footprint will not extend beyond the existing railroad ROW and 

that the only construction activity that may be located outside existing ROW may be borrow areas or 

equipment storage areas, if required; however, the location of borrow areas and storage/laydown 

areas is currently unknown and environmental review of these areas will be completed at a later date. 

It is assumed that any modification to the existing railroad grade or to transition to a new alignment 

(i.e., adding new parallel track) will not extend below the existing railroad grade. Therefore, 

unknown archaeological sites that may be located below the existing railroad grade will not be 

impacted and survey of the existing railroad grade will not be required. If Native American burials 

are known to exist below existing grade or within the larger APE then the project will need to 

comply with Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, 1975 (M.S. 307.08) or the Wisconsin Burial Sites 

Preservation Law (Wis. Stats. 157.70) and the specific situation will be addressed as part of 

consultation obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The design of the proposed NLX project is continuing to be refined. As the design of the project 

progresses, if any of the assumptions above should change, then the proposed APE rationale would 

need to be adjusted accordingly. 

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY

For the proposed NLX project, the APE for architectural history needs to account for any physical, 

auditory, atmospheric, or visual impacts to historic properties. The potential effects from each 

component of the proposed project are different and, therefore, a different APE may be needed. 

The proposed project components are still being refined so the purpose of this discussion is to detail 

the APE associated with each component, which will then be combined into one APE based on the 

nature of the components proposed. 

The types of effects anticipated may include direct physical and/or vibratory effects, as well as 

potential indirect visual, auditory, and atmospheric effects. Effects may be temporary or permanent. 

To aid in identifying the potential effects the proposed elements of the project may have on 

architectural history properties in order to define an appropriate APE for architectural history, the 

following was assumed based on current project information: 
 Construction of the project will not exceed a time period of five years; 

 Construction along the project corridor will generally be intermittent and not continuous at 

any one point along the corridor for the duration of construction; 

 Construction activity will be limited to daytime hours, generally between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 

p.m., when higher noise levels are more acceptable; 

 The construction and operation of depots (stations) and other facilities such as parking lots 

will be included in a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process; 

 The centerline of any new parallel track will be, at most, 30 feet (ft.) off-set from the 

centerline of the existing railroad track within a corridor; 

 According to the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan (December 2007) by Transportation Economics 

& Management System, Inc. the number of freight trains that currently operate along the 

railroad corridors (Route No. 9) with active tracks range from 12 to 60 trains per day. A 

portion of one corridor also sees two intercity passenger trains per day. The maximum 

number of high-speed passenger trains (HSTs) that are proposed to be operated daily along 

the potential railroad corridors is eight, which would increase the number of trains along the 

active lines (Route No. 9) by 7 to 25 percent per day. If project assumptions change, 

portions of this APE rationale may need to be revisited and potentially revised; 

 The length of the proposed passenger trains will generally be much shorter than the freight 

trains that are currently operated along the proposed corridors with active tracks. According 

to the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive 

Feasibility Study and Business Plan the proposed passenger trains will not exceed 600 ft. in 

length, whereas the freight trains that currently operate along the active corridors generally 

range from several hundred ft. to over one mile (mi) in length; 

 The proposed passenger trains will be considerably lighter than freight trains and will 

therefore produce considerably less vibrations than freight trains and for shorter durations 

given their shorter lengths and higher speeds; and 

 Except for the noise produced by the horns on the locomotives, which will be the same as 

freight trains, the proposed passenger trains will generally produce less noise and for shorter 

durations in a location compared to a freight train since they will have fewer locomotives 

and cars, less weight, better tracking, and will be shorter in length and operating at higher 

speeds. 

 The proposed HSTs will travel at speeds of up to 110 miles per hour (mph), which is much 

faster than a freight train, so they will have a higher onset rate (approach rate due to their 

much higher speed) compared to freight trains that currently utilize the proposed NLX 

route. 

The proposed project would traverse a wide array of areas, ranging from densely developed urban 

areas, to small towns, to open prairie and farmland, to forested areas. Similarly, the topography along 

the line will also vary from flatlands to rolling hills. Given the diversity of these areas and their 

respective conditions, the APE may need to vary, depending on the actual circumstances of a place 

and the activity proposed for that particular location. The following sections will describe a rationale 

for the development of an APE for each anticipated construction or operation activity, as detailed 

earlier in this document. Since the design of the project is still being refined, the discussion will 

generally focus on identifying the maximum limits of an APE, rather than a minimum which would 

need to be increased in places to address unique conditions. There may be locations where 
conditions may allow for a reduced APE from the maximum described below (e.g. more dense 

vegetation reducing visibility); however, this will be confirmed based on visual inspection of the 

viewshed during field survey. 

New Track Parallel to an Existing Track 

This action would entail laying new track(s) parallel to existing tracks within an existing railroad 

ROW (operation of the line is discussed under the heading: Operation of the Line). This alternative 

could potentially result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

new tracks. Noise associated with the construction of a new parallel track within the existing ROW 

would include noise from construction activities, and from increased vehicular traffic to deliver, 

load, and unload construction materials. While the exact dB levels associated with construction 

activities has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that dB levels 

associated with construction of a new parallel track within an existing alignment will exceed 

acceptable levels as established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 500 ft. on either side of 

the project area. 

Construction of new parallel tracks would also result in temporary increases in dust and particulate 

matter associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading of materials, earth, and ballast 

dumping and storage. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and would vary according to 

construction activity and atmospheric conditions. Any potential increase in dust associated with 

construction of parallel track within an existing alignment would be temporary and amounts 

generated would not likely be any greater than dust generated by wind storms in rural areas. In urban 

areas, the existing built environment (e.g. buildings and structures) would block and disrupt winds 

and further dissipate any dust generated during construction. Therefore, the area that could 

potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited to no more 500 ft. and 

effects, if any, would be temporary. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical and/or vibratory effects and potential indirect visual 

effects to the corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. 

Direct physical effects would be limited to the project area and alterations to the existing roadbed. 

Vibrations associated with new track(s) parallel to existing tracks within an existing railroad ROW 

could include vibrations from ground disturbing activity and from trucks, heavy equipment, railbased equipment, and from the loading and unloading of materials in the project area. Vibrations 

from such activities would most likely be minimal and would not likely impact an area more than 

500 ft. from the project area. Therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area would 

be sufficient to address vibrations associated with the construction of new track(s) parallel to 

existing tracks within an existing railroad ROW. 

Permanent indirect visual effects may vary; however, provided that the grades, elevations, and 

profiles of the parallel track are similar to the existing roadbed in the corridor, the construction of a 

parallel track within an existing ROW would have a relatively minor affect on the visual character of 

the corridor, especially in relatively flat areas where the alignment cannot be viewed from above. As 

a result, the area that would be visually affected would be somewhat limited. Since the track will be 

placed parallel to the existing track offset no more than 30 ft. from the existing, and it is assumed 

that the height, grades, and profile of the new parallel track are not significantly different from the 

existing roadbed (e.g. height of the new and rebuilt roadbed is not changed more than a 2.5 ft. from 
the height of the existing roadbed), based on other railroad projects in Minnesota, an APE of 500 ft. 

on either side of the project area would be sufficient to account for potential visual effects. 

However, if grades, cuts, and fills are modified, the associated changes in these elements of the 

existing corridor may alter, and increase the visual prominence of the corridor and would thereby 

impact a larger area. If the construction of a parallel track results in height and profile differences 

between the existing roadbed that exceeds 5 to 10 ft., depending on the location and terrain of the 

area (10 ft. in hilly and/or heavily forested areas and 5 ft. in generally flat and/or open areas), a 

larger APE would be required to account for the increased visual effect. In these instances, an APE 

of 0.125 (one-eighth) mi (660 feet) is recommended to account for changes to views of the corridor 

and the landscape. 

In summary, the APE for laying new track(s) parallel to existing tracks should include 500 ft. on 

either side of the project area, assuming that the grade change of the new alignment is within 2.5 ft. 

of the height of the existing track. If the proposed alignment will have a grade change more than 2.5 

ft. from the height of the existing track, an APE of 0.125 mi around the project area is 

recommended. 

New Bridge Associated with New Parallel Track

This action would entail the construction of a new bridge(s) associated with a new parallel track(s) 

located adjacent to existing bridges within an existing railroad ROW. This alternative could 

potentially result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed bridge. Noise associated with bridge construction would include noise from construction 

activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to the site, loading and unloading 

construction materials, and potentially pile driving. While the exact dB levels associated with 

construction activities has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated 

that dB levels associated with construction of a new bridge will exceed acceptable levels as 

established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Construction of a new bridge would result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading materials, and storage of construction 

materials and equipment. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and vary according to 

atmospheric conditions; however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the 

project area increased. Therefore, the area that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in 

dust should be limited to no more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include potential direct effects from vibrations and indirect visual effects 

to the corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. 

Vibrations associated with new bridge construction could include vibrations from rail-based 

equipment, trucks and heavy equipment, and from loading and unloading materials. Vibrations from 

such activities would most likely be minimal and would not likely impact an area more than 500 ft. 

from the project area. However, pile driving associated with new bridge construction would result in 

greater vibrations that would have a wider area of impact. 

Vibrations from pile driving can result in two types of potential effects: (a) real damage to property 

and (b) perception by humans (Transportation Research Board [TRB] 1997:1). For the development 
of an APE for architectural history properties related to the construction of the proposed NLX line, 

the primary consideration is real damage to historic properties as a result of vibrations, which can 

take the form of structural damage, including cracking and breaking of structural elements or ground 

settlement. Structural damage from impact driving can be minimized or eliminated by alternatives 

such as vibratory driving, or changing to auger cast (TRB 1997:1). However, for the development of 

an architectural APE for pile driving, it was assumed that the project will utilize impact driving. 

A number of studies have been conducted on the impacts of vibrations and pile installations on 

adjacent structures, including historic buildings. Studies have been done to determine (a) the 

maximum safe limits of vibrations that will not result in damage to adjacent structures, including 

historic buildings, during construction projects, and (b) the area of influence for pile driving that 

falls within these maximum acceptable vibration limits. Many agencies have established maximum 

safe limits for vibrations as described below. 

Based on its own studies, the non-extant U.S. Bureau of Mines recommended a “safe blasting limit” 

of 50 millimeters(mm)/second (sec) (2 inches[in]/sec) peak particle velocity (ppv) for mining activity 

(CTC & Associates and WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). Given the many inherent similarities in 

terms of ground-borne vibrations between blasting and pile driving, over time, this maximum limit 

has also been commonly applied to construction vibration and is widely viewed by many engineers 

as being stringent enough to prevent damage to most surrounding structures, regardless of age or 

fragility (CTC & Associates and WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). 

While 50 mm/sec (2 in/sec) is a commonly used, a number of federal agencies and state 

transportation departments across the country have established significantly lower (more 

conservative) thresholds for projects subject to their oversight. The National Park Service (NPS) for 

example has set a maximum limit of 0.2 in/sec (5 mm/sec) ppv for structures that exhibit significant 

levels of historic architectural importance, or that are in a poor or deteriorated state of maintenance, 

which is one tenth of 50 mm/sec, and a slightly higher limit of 0.5 in/sec (12 mm/sec) ppv for all 

other historic sites (Sedovic 1984:59). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has established 

criteria for assessing potential vibration damage to structures based on the type of building 

construction (Table 1) (FTA 2006). 

FIGURE 1. FTA CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA 

Building Category Maximum PPV 

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 in/sec (12 mm/sec) 

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 in/sec (7 mm/sec) 

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 in/sec (5 mm/sec) 

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 in/sec (3 mm/sec) 

A number of state departments of transportation have also established standards for projects they 

build or fund. For example, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has set an 

“architectural damage risk level” for continuous vibrations (peak vertical particle velocity of 5 

mm/sec (0.2 in/sec). For ruins, ancient monuments, and historical buildings and structures in poor 

condition, Caltrans recommends an even lower upper limit of 2 mm/sec (0.08 in/sec) for 

continuous vibrations (CTC & Associates and WisDOT RTD Program 2003:2). 
Given the geographic area the proposed NLX line will traverse and its developmental history, it is 

highly probable that a significant percentage of the architectural history resources along the 

proposed NLX project corridor are non-engineered timber and masonry buildings that are also likely 

to contain plaster. Since these types of structures are more susceptible to damage from vibrations 

than engineered and reinforced structures, it is recommended that the APE for architectural history 

include all areas subject to a ppv of 5 mm/sec (0.2 in/sec) or greater as a result of vibrations related 

to construction activity, including pile driving to encompass the greatest range of potential vibration 

impacts to historic structures. This number corresponds with both (a) the NPS’s recommended 

maximum for both deteriorated historic resources and resources with architectural significance, and 

(b) the FTA’s standard for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. However, in the event 

that the architectural history survey for the proposed project identifies extremely deteriorated, highly 

fragile architectural history properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it 

is recommended that a vibration study be completed for these resources and attempts made to limit 

vibrations in these isolated locations to 3 mm/sec (0.12 in/sec). 

When looking at the correlation between distance from the point of impact of pile driving and the 

potential for damaged to adjacent structures, according to the TRB, experience has shown that 

“direct damage to structures is not likely to occur at a distance from the pile of (a) more than 15 

meters for piles 15 meters long or less, or (b) one pile length for piles longer than 15 meters” (TRB 

1997:1). However, the TRB does note that “in few cases has there been direct damage to a structure 

when the pile driving was done at a distance of at least one pile length from the target (TRB 

1997:43). The main exception to the one pile length distance “rule of thumb” guideline is typically 

related to the settlement of soils densified by vibrations, resulting in settlement that can take place at 

distances greater than one pile length (TRB 1997:43). To account for the potential presence of loose, 

clean sands in the zone of influence, the TRB recommends using a zone of influence of up to 400 

meters from the pile driving. This distance translates to 1,312.34 ft., or approximately 0.25 mi. 

Based on this analysis, it is recommended that an APE of 0.25 mi from the project area be used to 

account for all potential types of vibrations associated with bridge construction. In areas with sound 

soil, where a soil survey confirms there is no soil prone to settlement, the APE to account for 

impacts to architectural resources can be reduced to the length of the longest pile used in this 

particular area. 

Permanent indirect visual effects may vary; however, it is assumed that if the new bridge(s) will be of 

a similar type, scale, height, and proportion, and constructed of similar materials as the existing 

parallel bridge, although the new bridge(s) may be visible from some distance, the area that would be 

significantly affected visually would be somewhat limited. Therefore, an APE of 0.125 mi is 

recommended. If the design of the new bridge(s) will be out of scale and proportion from the 

existing parallel bridge(s) and/or is a significantly different type, or constructed of different 

materials, its visual prominence would affect a larger area and a larger APE may be required. 

In summary, the APE for the construction of a new bridge(s) associated with a new parallel track(s) 

located parallel to existing bridges within an existing railroad ROW assumes that the proposed 

bridge(s) would be of similar type, design, scale, height, and proportion and constructed of similar 

materials as the existing parallel bridge(s). Therefore, the APE should include a 0.25 mi buffer 

around the project area to account for all potential visual effects, as well as account for potential 

effects to historic properties from potential vibrations related to pile driving during construction. 
Specific details relating to the construction of new bridges are still being developed and if the design 

for a proposed new bridge(s) is not of a similar type, scale, height, and proportion, or constructed of 

similar materials as the existing parallel bridge, a larger APE may be required to account for potential 

increased indirect visual effects. 

Replacing an Existing Bridge/Underpass 

This action would entail removal of an existing bridge or underpass and replacing it with a newly 

constructed bridge or underpass. This alternative would result in both temporary and permanent 

direct and indirect effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed bridge/underpass. Noise associated with bridge/underpass replacement would include 

noise from demolition and construction activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to 

the site, and loading and unloading construction materials. While the exact dB levels associated with 

replacing an existing bridge/underpass has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is 

not anticipated that dB levels associated with construction of a replacement bridge/underpass will 

exceed acceptable levels as established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 0.125 mi from 

the project area. 

The demolition of the existing bridge/underpass and the construction of a new bridge/underpass 

would result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter associated with earthmoving 

activity, loading and unloading materials, and storage of construction materials and equipment. Dust 

levels in the air would be intermittent and vary according to atmospheric conditions; however, the 

level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the project area increased. Therefore, the area 

that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited to no more than 

0.125 mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical effects to the existing bridge/underpass due to its 

removal and to the existing corridor and railroad roadbed, as well as direct vibratory effects to the 

corridor and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. Vibrations 

associated with replacement bridge/underpass construction could include vibrations from rail-based 

equipment, trucks, heavy equipment, and from loading and unloading materials, which based on 

similar projects would be limited to an area 500 ft. from the project area. The demolition of the 

existing bridge/underpass would result in greater vibrations that would have a wider area of impact; 

an APE of 0.125 mi from the project area for this action is therefore recommended. However, as 

indicated in the section above for new bridges, pile driving associated with new bridge/underpass 

construction would result in greater vibrations that would impact a wider area; therefore, if pile 

driving is required for construction of the replacement bridge/underpass, an APE of 0.25 mi from 

the project area is recommended to account for all potential types of vibrations associated with 

bridge construction. 

Permanent effects would also include permanent indirect visual effects; however, the area affected 

may vary. It is assumed that any replacement bridge will be constructed along the same alignment as 

the existing bridge and will be of a similar type, scale and design, and utilizes similar materials as the 

existing bridge and, therefore, the area that would be significantly affected visually would be 

somewhat limited. Based on similar projects, an APE of 0.125 mi is recommended. However, where 

a new design is used, its visual prominence could potentially affect a larger area and in these 

instances a larger APE may be required to account for potential increased indirect visual effects. 
In summary, the APE for the removal and replacement of an existing bridge/underpass with a new 

bridge/underpass within an existing railroad ROW, provided the new bridge/underpass is of a 

similar type, scale and design and utilizes similar materials as the existing bridge/underpass, should 

include a 0.25 mi buffer around the project area to account for all potential direct and indirect 

effects. Specific details relating to the construction of new bridges are still being developed and if a 

new design is used for the replacement bridge/underpass, a larger APE may be required to account 

for potential additional indirect visual effects. 

Improving/Upgrading an Existing Bridge 

This action would entail improvements and upgrades to existing bridge(s) within a railroad corridor. 

This alternative could potentially result in both temporary and permanent indirect and direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during the construction of the 

proposed project. Noise associated with bridge improvement/upgrades would include increased 

noise from construction activities, increased vehicular traffic bringing materials to the site, loading 

and unloading construction materials, and potentially pile driving. While the exact dB levels 

associated with construction activities has not been determined, based on other similar projects, it is 

not anticipated that dB levels associated with bridge improvements/upgrades will exceed acceptable 

levels as established by the State of Minnesota in areas more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Improving/upgrading a bridge would also result in temporary increases in dust and particulate 

matter associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading materials, and storage of 

construction materials and equipment. Dust levels in the air would be intermittent and vary 

according to atmospheric conditions; however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance 

from the project area increased. Since the proposed improvements will not include pier adjustments 

or pile driving, the area that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be 

limited to no more than 0.125 mi from the project area. 

Permanent effects would include direct physical effects to the railroad corridor and the 

improved/upgraded bridge(s) and potential direct vibratory and indirect visual effects to the corridor 

and other historic properties as a result of changes to the existing corridor. According to 

information provided by SRF in March 2011, physical changes to the existing bridge(s) within the 

corridor will not include alterations to the approaches, abutments, cuts, the bridge piers, or to the 

railroad roadbed. In addition, it is assumed that any changes to the bridge spans will allow the 

bridges to maintain their appearance and retain a similar type, scale, height, proportion, and 

materials. Therefore, direct physical effects would be limited to the project area. Vibrations 

associated with bridge improvements/upgrades could include vibrations from trucks, heavy 

equipment, rail-based equipment, and from the loading and unloading of materials in the project 

area. Vibrations from such activities would most likely be minimal and would not likely impact an 

area more than 500 ft. from the project area. However, if pile driving is associated with bridge 

improvement/upgrades, vibrations from it could potentially result in greater vibrations and impact a 

wider area than other construction activities. According to information provided SRF in March 

2011, proposed bridge improvements would not require significant pier adjustments, if any, and no 

pile driving is anticipated; therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area is 

recommended to account for all vibratory effects. 
Indirect visual effects may vary; however, it is assumed that the improvements/upgrades to the 

bridge(s) will allow the bridge to maintain its appearance and retain a similar type, scale, height, 

proportion, and materials. Therefore, although the improved/upgraded bridge(s) may be visible 

from some distance in certain locations, the area that would be significantly affected visually would 

be somewhat limited. In this case an APE of 0.125 mi would be recommended, assuming that the 

improvements/upgrades to the bridge(s) are in scale and proportion and material types to the 

existing bridge(s). If the proposed improvements/upgrades include replacement spans that will be of 

a different type, design, scale, materials, or proportions that the existing spans, a larger APE may be 

required. 

In summary, the APE for improvements and upgrades to existing bridge(s) within a railroad corridor 

should include a 0.125 mi buffer around the project area, and assumes the existing spans will be 

improved/upgraded with in-kind materials that would be consistent with the existing bridge(s). If 

the proposed improvements/upgrades include replacement spans that will be of a different type, 

design, scale, materials, or proportions that the existing spans, a larger APE may be required. 

 

Using an Existing Alignment 

This action would entail utilizing existing tracks along an existing railroad corridor (operation of the 

line is discussed under the heading: Operation of the Line). According to information provided by SRF 

in March and August 2011, the existing railroad lines contain intact tracks that will be upgraded from 

a class 3 to a class 5 line. The upgrades can be accomplished through tie replacement and ballast 

improvements, which can be done as part of line maintenance, utilizing tie replacement trains and 

ballast placement trains. All work will be performed from the track and would have no impacts 

outside the existing track bed will be required. This alternative may result in both temporary and 

permanent direct effects. 

Temporary indirect effects would include increases in noise and dust during potential replacement or 

improvement of existing tracks. Noise associated with potential new tracks may include noise from 

construction activities; however, since the upgrades will be accomplished using tie and ballast 

replacement trains, noise effects associated with delivering, loading, and unloading construction 

materials should be minimal. While the exact dB levels associated with construction activities has not 

been determined, based on other similar projects, it is not anticipated that dB levels associated with 

construction of a new tracks on an existing alignment will exceed acceptable levels as established by 

the State of Minnesota in areas more than 500 ft. from the project area. 

The use of an existing alignment may result in temporary increases in dust and particulate matter 

associated with earthmoving activity, loading and unloading of materials. Dust levels in the air 

associated with this potential activity would be intermittent and would vary depending upon 

atmospheric conditions; however, the level of dust in the air would disperse as distance from the 

project area increased. Since the repair/replacement of existing tracks will be completed using tie 

and ballast replacement trains from the existing rail corridor and no changes to grade profiles is 

proposed, the area that could potentially be adversely affected by increases in dust should be limited 

to no more than 500 ft. from the project area. 

According to information provided by SRF in March and August 2011, the proposed upgrade of the 

existing alignment will not include any changes to the existing grade or height and profile of the 

existing track; therefore, permanent visual effects should be relatively minimal and, based on other 

railroad projects in Minnesota, should be confined to an area within 500 ft. of the project area. 
Permanent vibratory effects associated with repair or replacement of existing tracks could include 

vibrations from ground disturbing activity and from rail-based equipment loading and unloading 

materials in the project area. Vibrations from such activities would most likely be minimal and would 

not likely impact an area more than 500 ft. from the project area. Given the potential range of 

vibrations, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the project area would be sufficient to address 

vibrations associated with the repair or replacement of existing tracks. 

In summary, the APE for utilizing existing tracks along an existing railroad corridor should include a 

500 foot buffer on either side of the project area. 

Operation of the Line 

Operation of the line could potentially result in permanent direct and indirect effects to historic 

properties. Potential permanent direct effects associated with an increase in vibrations from the 

trains and associated vehicular traffic include impacts to historic properties that could potentially 

result in their structural degradation and compromise overtime. However, as stated in the 

assumptions section, the vibrations caused from the operation of high-speed passenger trains, which 

will have fewer cars and will be lighter in weight, will be less than the existing freight trains. While 

the operation of the proposed line will result in increases of train traffic and a slight increase in the 

frequency of train vibrations, the overall increases will be minimal. 

Permanent indirect effects associated with operation of the line include noise due to increased train 

traffic, and increased vehicular traffic associated with the trains. Additional noise resulting from 

individual trains (operation and horns), and associated noise such as crossing signals may also 

potentially result in permanent indirect effects. Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable 

sound, where sound is characterized by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the 

atmospheric pressure. The basic parameters of environmental noise that affect human response are 

(1) intensity or level, (2) frequency content and (3) variation with time (Johnson et al. 2011). 

Several federal and state agencies have developed standards for evaluating noise impacts; however, 

since this project is subject to FRA approval, its criteria were used to determine an APE for noise. 

The FRA has established allowable noise levels for trains and train horns. The maximum allowed 

noise level for locomotives manufactured after December 31, 1979 and for moving trains is 90 

decibels (dB) (FRA 2000). The minimum noise level for train horns is 96 dB and the maximum is 

110 dB (FRA n.d.). As traditional diesel powered train sets, the HSTs will need to adhere to these 

standards. As noted in the assumptions section, the HSTs will be shorter, lighter and faster than the 

freight trains that currently utilize the line, so noise from their movement typically will not be greater 

than existing higher speed freight trains on the proposed line. However, a noise and vibration 

impact study for the proposed project prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson (HMM&M) in 

April 2011, notes that an important characteristic of the noise from HSTs is the onset rate of the 

sound signature, which is the average rate of change of increasing sound pressure level in decibels 

per second (dB/sec) during a single noise event (Johnson et al. 2011:2). The rapid approach of a 

HST 

Is accompanied by a sudden increase in noise for a receiver near the tracks. Sounds 

that have faster onset rates can cause more annoyance than sounds with slower 

variation or steady noise with the same noise level. The relationship between speed 

and distance defines locations where the onset rate for high-speed train operations 

may cause surprise or startle (Johnson et al. 2011:2-3). 
According to the study, the maximum speed of the HSTs along the NLX corridor is 110 mph. 

Based on this speed, the area for potential for surprise or “startle” includes all areas within 22 ft. of 

the track centerline (Johnson et al. 2011:3). 

This study also looked at overall noise impacts using the FRA’s criteria, which are “based on welldocumented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure 

using a sliding scale” (Johnson et al. 2011). The FRA criteria rely on the noise sensitivity levels of 

different land uses to determine impacts (Table 2). FRA criteria also include two levels of impact: 

severe impact and moderate impact. A severe impact is when project-generated noise is expected to 

cause a significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed by the new noise and normally 

requires mitigation. A moderate impact is when the change in the cumulative noise level is 

noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the 

community. In these areas mitigation may or may not be required, depending on other factors, 

including existing noise levels, predicted level of increase over existing noise levels, the types and 

numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected, the noise sensitivity of the properties, the 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures, community views and the cost of mitigating noise to more 

acceptable levels (Johnson et al. 2011:6-7). 

TABLE 1. LAND USE CATEGORIES AND METRICS FOR HST NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA

Land Use 

Category Description of Land Use Category 

1 

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes 

lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert 

pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. 

2 Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals and 

hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

3 

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries 

and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation and 

concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as 

medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios and concert halls fall into this category, as well as 

places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments and museums. Certain historical 

sites, parks and recreational facilities are also included. 

Source: Johnson et al. 2011, from Federal Railroad Administration, 2005 

Using FRA criteria, the HMM&M study assessed the overall impacts from HST noise using a 

“source-path-receiver” framework where the “source” generates noise levels that depends on the 

type of source (e.g., HSTs) and its operating characteristics (e.g., speed), the “receiver” is the noisesensitive land use (e.g., a house or school) exposed to noise from the source, and the “path” 

between the source and the receiver is where the noise is reduced by distance, intervening buildings 

and topography (Johnson et al. 2011). During the study representative sites in sensitive land use 

areas along the proposed NLX line were monitored to (a) characterize existing baseline noise 

conditions and (b) determine the level of impact from the proposed project. Monitoring sites ranged 

from 10 ft. to 474 ft. from the proposed NLX tracks (Johnson et al. 2011). While the study did not 

specifically look at historic properties, it identified a total of 61 severe noise impacts and 289 

moderate noise impacts to sites up to 459 ft. from the proposed NLX tracks (Johnson et al. 1011). 

Based on this study, at a minimum, the APE should include areas within 459 ft. of the centerlines of 

the proposed NLX tracks. However, since this study did not specifically consider impacts to historic 

properties where lower noise levels may be important aspects of their significance and historic 
integrity, a slightly larger APE is recommended. Therefore, an APE of 500 ft. on either side of the 

project area is recommended to account for potential impacts from noise related to operation of 

HSTs to architectural history resources. 

In summary, the operation of the line would be a compatible use with the historical and current 

function of the area and associated rail corridors. Therefore, the APE for operation of the line, 

separate from the associated new construction, is recommended as 500 ft. on either side of the 

project area. 

Other Associated Features 

As noted previously the construction and operation of the proposed line would necessitate the 

construction of additional facilities such as repair and maintenance buildings; passenger stations; 

ticket booths; and parking lots. The construction of these associated facilities and their potential 

effect(s) will be addressed through a separate NEPA process. 

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES

Traditional cultural properties will have their own APE, which will need to be determined by FRA in 

consultation with Federally recognized Native American tribes. 
REFERENCES CITED

CTC & Associates, and WisDOT RTD Program 

2003 Construction Vibration and Historic Buildings. Transportation Synthesis Report. Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation, Madison, WI. 

Federal Railroad Administration 

n.d. Federal Railroad Administration Train Horn Fact Sheet. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/TRAIN_HORN_RULE_FactSheet.pdf, 

accessed January 5, 2011. 

2000 Railroad Noise Emissions Compliance Regulation, [49CFR210]. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/173.shtml, accessed January 5, 2011. 

Federal Railroad Administration 

2008 Federal Track Safety Standards Fact Sheet. Electronic document, 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/Track_Standards_fact_sheet_FINAL.pdf, 

accessed February 27, 2012 

Federal Transit Administration 

2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation, 

Office of Planning and Environment. Washington, DC. 

Johnson, Timothy M., Ruth Anne Mazur, and Carl E. Hanson 

2011 Northern Lights Express Environmental Assessment: Noise and Vibration Technical Report. Harris 

Miller Miller & Hanson, Burlington, MA. 

Sedovic, Walter 

1984 Assessing the Effect of Vibration on Historic Buildings. Bulletin for the Association for 

Preservation Technology 16(3-4):52-61. 

Transportation Research Board 

1997 Dynamic Effects of Pile Installations on Adjacent Structures. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway 

Practice 253. Washington, DC. 
Minnesota

Wisconsin

Source: USGS 1:250,000-scale series; ESRI; The 106 Group Ltd.

Northern Lights Express

Phase I Architectural History Survey

Minnesota and Wisconsin

North

Project Overview

0 612

Miles

1:349,677

0 612

Kilometers

Proposed Northern Lights Express Line

Architectural History APE

Map Produced by The 106 Group Ltd: 2/9/2012
Source: USGS 1:250,000-scale series; ESRI; The 106 Group Ltd.

Northern Lights Express

Phase I Architectural History Survey

Minnesota and Wisconsin

South

Project Overview

0 612

Miles

1:350,000

0 10 20

Kilometers

Proposed Northern Lights Express Line

Architectural History APE

Map Produced by The 106 Group Ltd: 2/9/2012
APPENDIX J

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Table J-1: Community Facilities within the NLX Corridor

NLX Environmental Assessment J - 1 February 2013

Table J.1. Community Facilities within the NLX Corridor

Facility Address City State Distance from corridor Type

Bethlehem Lutheran Church 6316 Kirke Alle Askov MN 1 block Church

Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints 3422 Highway 23 Askov MN Over 3 blocks Church

Askov City Hall 6369 Kobmagergade Askov MN 1 block Municipal

Fire Department 6369 Kobmagergade Askov MN 2 blocks Municipal

Bethel Community Church 23850 Dewey St NW Bethel MN 1 block Church

Braham Evan Covenant Church 508 Broadway Ave N Braham MN 2 blocks Church

St. Stephens Lutheran Church 400 8th St SE Braham MN Over 3 blocks Church

Braham Medical Clinic 210 Douglas Dr S Braham MN Over 3 blocks Hospital

First Baptist Church 304 Main St S Cambridge MN 2 blocks Church

New Hope Community Church 370 Main St S Cambridge MN 1 block Church

Cambridge United Pentecostal Church 210 10th Ave SW Cambridge MN 1 block Church

Victory Christian Center 2440 Main St S Cambridge MN 1 block Church

East Central Regional Library 244 Birch St S Cambridge MN 4 blocks Library

Cambridge Union Cemetery Old South Main St Cambridge MN W/in 1 block of existing Cemetery

Christ the King Cemetery Old South Main St Cambridge MN W/in 1 block of existing Cemetery

Mobile Home Park Pine Village Dr Cambridge MN Begins 1 block Other

Rum River South School 140 Buchanan St N Cambridge MN W/in 1 block School

Cambridge-Isanti Schools 625 Main St N Cambridge MN 2 blocks School

Cambridge Middle School 801 20th Ave NE Cambridge MN 3 blocks School

Blaine Congregation 9140 E River Rd NW Coon Rapids MN W/in 2 blocks Church

Mercy Hospital 4050 Coon Rapids Blvd Coon Rapids MN Approx. 2 miles Hospital

Coon Rapids City Hall 11155 Robinson Dr NW Coon Rapids MN Over 6 blocks Municipal

Police Station 11155 Robinson Dr NW Coon Rapids MN Over 6 blocks Municipal

Fire Station 11155 Robinson Dr NW Coon Rapids MN Over 6 blocks Municipal

Fire Station 1460 Egret Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN Over 10 blocks Municipal

Creekside Estates 1100 Egret Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN W/in 1 block Other

Arona Academy 9237 E River Rd NW Coon Rapids MN W/in 1 block; Bldg (rear) w/in 

200' of existing track

School
NLX Environmental Assessment J - 2 February 2013

Facility Address City State Distance from corridor Type

Coon Rapids High School 2340 Northdale Blvd NW Coon Rapids MN Over 10 blocks School

Coon Rapids Middle School 11600 Raven St NW Coon Rapids MN Over 10 blocks School

Sand Creek Elementary School 12156 Olive St NW Coon Rapids MN Over 3 blocks School

Duluth Public Library 520 W Superior St Duluth MN 2 blocks Library

Fire Station 602 W 2nd St Duluth MN 4 blocks Municipal

Duluth Entertainment Convention Center 350 Harbor Dr Duluth MN 1 block Other

Bayfront Festival Park 10th Ave W & Railroad St W Duluth MN 1 block Other

Great Lakes Aquarium 353 Harbor Dr Duluth MN 1 block Other

St. Louis County Heritage & Arts Center 506 W Michigan St Duluth MN W/in 1 block (station location) Other

Avalon Educational Institute 404 West Superior St Duluth MN 2 blocks School

Harbor City International School 332 W Michigan St Duluth MN 2 blocks School

University of Minnesota - Duluth 1049 University Dr Duluth MN Approx. 2 miles School

College of St. Scholastica 1200 Kenwood Ave Duluth MN Approx. 2 miles School

Lake Superior College 2101 Trinity Rd Duluth MN Approx. 1 mile School

Redeemer Lutheran Church 61 Mississippi St NE Fridley MN W/in 1 block; bldg (side) w/in 

200' of existing track

Church

Mississippi Branch Library 410 Mississippi St NE Fridley MN Over 5 blocks Library

Fridley City Hall 6431 University Ave NE Fridley MN Over 3 blocks Municipal

Fridley Community Center 6085 7th St NE Fridley MN Over 10 blocks Municipal

Post Office 2961 369th Avenue NE Grandy MN 1 block Municipal

Church Highway 65 & 367th Ln NE Grandy MN 1 block Church

Grasston Baptist Church 402 Oak St Grasston MN 3 blocks Church

Hope Lutheran Church 301 Oak St Grasston MN 3 blocks Church

Grace Christian School 406 Pine St Grasston MN Approx 1/2 mile School

City Offices 119 Main St Henriette MN W/in 1 block; w/in 200' of existing 

track

Municipal

First Presbyterian Church 1813 Fire Monument Rd Hinckley MN Approx. 2 miles Church

Tatting Methven Funeral Chapel 402 Lawler Ave S Hinckley MN W/in 1 block Church

First Lutheran Church ECLA 301 Lawler Ave S Hinckley MN W/in 1 block Church

St. Patrick's Lutheran Church 203 Lawler Ave S Hinckley MN 1 block Church

Faith Baptist Church 601 2nd St SE Hinckley MN 3 blocks Church
NLX Environmental Assessment J - 3 February 2013

Facility Address City State Distance from corridor Type

Seventh Day Adventist Church 550 1st St NE Hinckley MN 2 blocks Church

Hinckley Evangelical Free Church 518 Barry Ave Hinckley MN 3 blocks Church

Alliance of Devine Love 125 Main St E Hinckley MN 2 blocks Church

Bible Baptist Church 209 Old Highway 61 N Hinckley MN 2 blocks Church

Gateway Family Health Clinic 206 Main St W Hinckley MN 3 blocks Hospital

Hinckley Public Library 106 1st St SE Hinckley MN 2 blocks Library

Hinckley Community Center 102 Dunn Ave N Hinckley MN 3 blocks Municipal

Hinckley City Hall 106 1st St Hinckley MN 2 blocks Municipal

Hinckley-Finlayson High School 201 Main St E Hinckley MN 2 blocks School

Hinckley Elementary School 111 Blair Ave S Hinckley MN 2 blocks School

Elim Baptist Church 114 Dahlin Ave Isanti MN 1 block Church

Faith Lutheran Church 109 2nd Ave S Isanti MN 2 blocks Church

Fire Station 401 N 1st Ave Isanti MN 1 block Municipal

Post Office 25 W Main St Isanti MN W/in 1 block; w/in 100' from 

existing track

Municipal

City Hall 110 1st Ave NW Isanti MN W/in 1 block; w/in 200' from 

existing track

Municipal

Cambridge Isanti Schools 424 1st Ave Isanti MN 2 blocks School

Isanti Primary School 305 County Road 5 Isanti MN Over 10 blocks School

Post Office County Road 46 Kerrick MN W/in 1 block Municipal

Kerrick Community Church 24 3rd Ave Kerrick MN 2 blocks Church

Antioch Communuty Church 301 Main St NE Minneapolis MN 1 Block Church

Our Spiritual Center 615 1st Ave NE Minneapolis MN W/in 1 block; Bldg (rear) w/in 

200' of existing track

Church

Beltrami Community Church 1111 Summer St NE Minneapolis MN 1 block Church

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church 701 Fillmore St NE Minneapolis MN 3 blocks Church

Abbey Way Covenant Church 685 13th Avenue NE Minneapolis MN 2 blocks Church

Northeast Community Lutheran Church 697 13th Ave Minneapolis MN 2 blocks Church

Strong Tower Parish 697 13th Ave NE Minneapolis MN 2 blocks Church

New Commandment Church 1429 Madison St NE Minneapolis MN 3 blocks Church

Firefighters Hall and Museum 664 22nd Ave NE Minneapolis MN W/in 200' of existing track Other

Minneapolis Public Schools 807 Broadway St NE Minneapolis MN 1 block School
NLX Environmental Assessment J - 4 February 2013

Facility Address City State Distance from corridor Type

Edison High School 700 22nd Ave NE Minneapolis MN 1 block ; athletic field w/in 200' of 

existing track

School

Town Hall Hwy 23 & Main Street Nickerson MN 2 blocks Municipal

Lifelong Learning Center 18900 Cedar Drive NW Oak Grove MN W/in 1 block School

Assembly of God 701 Commercial Ave N Sandstone MN 2 blocks Church

Evangelical Free Church 522 N Main St Sandstone MN 1 block Church

United Church of Christ 210 Commercial Ave N Sandstone MN 2 blocks Church

St. Luke's Catholic Church 122 Commercial Ave N Sandstone MN 2 blocks Church

Community Worship Center 114 Minnesota St Sandstone MN 2 blocks Church

Pine Medical Center 109 Court Ave s Sandstone MN 3 blocks Hospital

Sandstone Public Library 119 4th St Sandstone MN 3 blocks Library

Sandstone City Hall 119 4th St Sandstone MN 3 blocks Municipal

Sandstone Fire Department 113 Main St Sandstone MN W/in 1 block Municipal

Stanchfield Baptist Church 38850 Stanchfield Rd NE Stanchfield MN W/in 1 block Church

Cemetery Midway St NE Stanchfield MN 1 block Other

Homecraft Mobile Home Park 4015 Tower Ave Superior WI W/in 1 block Other

Cooper Elementary School 1807 Missouri Ave Superior WI Over 10 blocks School

Greenwood Cemetery 8402 Tower Ave Superior 

Village

WI W/in 1 block Cemetery

Bryant Elementary School 1423 Central Ave Superior 

Village

WI Over 5 blocks School
APPENDIX K 

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RAILROAD CROSSINGS

Table K-1: At-grade Railroad Crossings between

Minneapolis, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin – NLX Corridor

NLX Environmental Assessment K - 1 February 2013 

Table K-1. At-grade Railroad Crossings between Minneapolis, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin – Route 9

Subdivision

Mile 

Post

Public/

Private At-grade Type Community Name of Crossing

Wayzata 10.79 Public Flashing Signal Minneapolis W Island Ave

Wayzata 9.83 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Minneapolis Harrison St NE

Midway 10.19 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Minneapolis 12th Ave NE

Midway 10.37 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Minneapolis 14th Ave NE

Staples 15.26 Private Crossing Fridley

Staples 17.84 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Fridley Osborne Rd NE

Staples 18.10 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Fridley 77th Ave NE

Staples 19.46 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Fridley 85th Ave NW

Staples 20.50 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Coon Rapids Foley Blvd

Hinckley 135.91 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Coon Rapids Egret Blvd

Hinckley 134.61 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Coon Rapids Northdale Blvd

Hinckley 134.01 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Coon Rapids 121st Ave NW

Hinckley 133.66 Public - Coon Rapids Main St

Hinckley 132.73 Private Crossing Coon Rapids

Hinckley 131.93 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Andover Bunker Lake Blvd

Hinckley 130.99 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Andover Andover Blvd NW

Hinckley 130.16 Private Crossing Andover

Hinckley 129.65 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Andover Crosstown Blvd

Hinckley 128.98 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Andover 161st Ave NW

Hinckley 128.56 Private Crossing Andover

Hinckley 128.23 Private Crossing Andover

Hinckley 127.92 Private Crossing Andover

Hinckley 127.73 Private Crossing Andover

Hinckley 127.47 Public Crossbucks Andover Ward Lake Dr

Hinckley 126.51 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Andover 181st Ave NW

Hinckley 125.28 Public Crossbucks 191st Ave N

Hinckley 125.04 Public Flashing Signal Viking Blvd NW

Hinckley 124.08 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Cedar Dr NW

Hinckley 123.34 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates 206th Ave NW

Hinckley 122.47 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Sims Rd NW

Hinckley 121.44 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates 221st Ave NW

Hinckley 120.44 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates 229th Ave NW

Hinckley 119.40 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Bethel 237th Ave NW

Hinckley 119.08 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Bethel Main St

Hinckley 118.26 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates County Road 56

Hinckley 117.29 Private Crossing LA Nelson

Hinckley 116.38 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates County Road 56

Hinckley 115.88 Public Crossbucks T 184 (265th Ave NE)

Hinckley 114.84 Public Crossbucks T176 (273rd Ave NE)

Hinckley 113.87 Public Crossbucks T 169 (281st Ave NE)

Hinckley 113.03 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Isanti Main Street

Hinckley 112.85 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Isanti CSAH 5 
NLX Environmental Assessment K - 2 February 2013 

Subdivision

Mile 

Post

Public/

Private At-grade Type Community Name of Crossing

Hinckley 112.31 Public Crossbucks TH 149 (293rd Ave NE)

Hinckley 111.73 Public Crossbucks T 138 (299th Ave NE)

Hinckley 110.84 Public Crossbucks T 133 (305th Ave NE)

Hinckley 109.79 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Cambridge 40th Ave SW (313th Ave NE)

Hinckley 107.96 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Cambridge 11th Ave SW

Hinckley 107.19 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Cambridge 1st Ave E

Hinckley 106.59 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Cambridge Emerson Ave N

Hinckley 105.95 Public Crossbucks T 75 (Highway 65)

Hinckley 105.11 Public Crossbucks T 74 (343rd Ave NE)

Hinckley 104.07 Public Crossbucks T 66 (349th Ave NE)

Hinckley 103.50 Public Crossbucks T 61 (357th Ave NE)

Hinckley 102.77 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Grandy CSAH 6 (367 Ave NE)

Hinckley 102.51 Public Crossbucks Grandy T 56 (369th Ave NE)

Hinckley 101.26 Public - 379th Ave NE

Hinckley 100.41 Private Crossing

Hinckley 99.94 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Stanchfield CSAH 3

Hinckley 99.54 Private Crossing

Hinckley 99.23 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates CR 36

Hinckley 98.81 Private Crossing

Hinckley 98.49 Public Crossbucks T 20 (401st Ave NE)

Hinckley 97.77 Private Crossing

Hinckley 96.95 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Braham CSAH 4 (413th Ave NE)

Hinckley 96.59 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Braham 4th St SE 

Hinckley 96.37 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Braham Central Dr E

Hinckley 95.94 Private Crossing Braham

Hinckley 94.72 Private Crossing

Hinckley 94.40 Public Crossing and Crossbucks T 212 (115th Ave)

Hinckley 93.88 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Hwy 70

Hinckley 92.75 Public Crossbucks CR 42

Hinckley 92.60 Public Crossbucks CSAH 28

Hinckley 91.37 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Grasston Pine St

Hinckley 89.25 Private Crossing

Hinckley 88.47 Public Crossbucks Henriette T 34 (CR 11, 5th Ave SW)

Hinckley 87.95 Private Crossing 

Hinckley 86.65 Private Crossing

Hinckley 86.48 Private Crossing

Hinckley 86.13 Public Crossbucks

Hinckley 85.87 Public Crossbucks CSAH 12 (Pokegama Ave E)

Hinckley 84.58 Public Crossbucks T 56 (CR 126)

Hinckley 84.11 Private Crossing

Hinckley 80.19 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Brook Park 2nd Ave (Mallard Rd) 

Hinckley 79.72 Public Crossbucks Brook Park M-2 (3rd Street)

Hinckley 79.12 Private Crossing

Hinckley 78.49 Public Crossbucks T 97 (Township Road)
NLX Environmental Assessment K - 3 February 2013 

Subdivision

Mile 

Post

Public/

Private At-grade Type Community Name of Crossing

Hinckley 77.69 Public Crossbucks T 97 (Township Road)

Hinckley 76.60 Public Crossbucks T 154 (Aspen Rd)

Hinckley 75.01 Public Crossbucks CSAH 17

Hinckley 73.94 Private Crossing

Hinckley 73.79 Public Crossbucks T 178

Hinckley 72.25 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Hinckley Old Highway 61

Hinckley 72.14 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Hinckley Lawler - 3rd St S

Hinckley 72.05 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Hinckley 2nd St SE

Hinckley 71.89 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Hinckley Main Street

Hinckley 71.10 Public Crossbucks Hinckley 7th St NE

Hinckley 64.37 Public Crossbucks Sandstone T 512 (Airport Road)

Hinckley 63.63 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Sandstone Hwy 123

Hinckley 62.90 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Sandstone Oak St

Hinckley 58.86 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates CR 123

Hinckley 57.33 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Askov CO HWY 33

Hinckley 57.18 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Askov Bregnedalgade St

Hinckley 56.01 Public Crossbucks T 956 (Partridge Dr)

Hinckley 55.68 Public Crossbucks T 889 (Mulling Rd)

Hinckley 53.36 Public Crossbucks T 575 (CR 145 Root Rd)

Hinckley 52.11 Public Crossbucks Starch Rd (CR 148)

Hinckley 51.48 Private Crossing 

Hinckley 48.82 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Bruno Main Street

Hinckley 49.57 Public Crossbucks Bruno Pine St

Hinckley 47.22 Public Crossbucks T 893

Hinckley 46.18 Public Crossbucks T 892

Hinckley 43.74 Private Crossing

Hinckley 43.12 Public Flashing Signal CSAH 46 (Deerfield Rd)

Hinckley 42.63 Public Crossbucks MN 9

Hinckley 42.38 Private Crossing

Hinckley 42.13 Private Crossing

Hinckley 40.54 Public Crossbucks T 648 

Hinckley 40.07 Public Crossbucks T 649 

Hinckley 39.39 Public Crossbucks T 650 

Hinckley 38.71 Public Crossbucks T 805 

Hinckley 37.96 Public Crossbucks T 913 

Hinckley 37.60 Public Crossbucks T 914 

Hinckley 36.65 Public Crossbucks T 807

Hinckley 35.61 Public Crossbucks CR 145

Hinckley 33.75 Public Crossbucks CR 146

Hinckley 33.10 Private Crossing

Hinckley 30.81 Public Crossbucks CR 147

Hinckley 29.70 Public Crossbucks Holyoke CR 145

Hinckley 29.15 Private Crossing

Hinckley 28.59 Public Crossbucks T 362
NLX Environmental Assessment K - 4 February 2013 

Subdivision

Mile 

Post

Public/

Private At-grade Type Community Name of Crossing

Hinckley 28.03 Private Crossing

Hinckley 27.54 Public Crossbucks T 365

Hinckley 26.18 Public Crossbucks T 367

Hinckley 25.90 Public Crossbucks

Hinckley 25.67 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates CSAH 8

Hinckley 25.01 Private Crossing

Hinckley 24.57 Public Crossbucks John Harris Rd

Hinckley 24.10 Public Crossbucks John Harris Rd

Hinckley 23.57 Private Crossing

Hinckley 23.21 Public Flashing Signal S CR-W

Hinckley 22.47 Private Crossing

Hinckley 21.97 Private Crossing

Hinckley 20.46 Private Crossing

Hinckley 18.72 Public Crossbucks Deadham Rd

Hinckley 17.46 Public Crossbucks Reed-Merril Rd

Hinckley 16.60 Public Crossbucks Manski Rd

Hinckley 15.17 Public Crossbucks Station Rd

Hinckley 14.51 Private Crossing Gustafson Rd

Hinckley 13.43 Public Crossbucks Ellison Rd

Hinckley 12.93 Public Crossbucks Rahrer Rd

Hinckley 12.42 Public Crossbucks Boylston Short Cut Rd

Hinckley 12.04 Public Flashing Signal Boylston

Hinckley 11.96 Public Flashing Signal

Lakes 11.85 Public Crossbucks Schallermeir Rd

Lakes 11.10 Public Crossbucks Ames Rd

Lakes 9.05 Public Crossbucks Superior Village 69th St (Park Ave)

Lakes 8.32 Public Flashing Signal with Automatic Gates Superior Village 61st St (Central Ave)

Lakes 8.05 Public Crossbucks Superior Village 58th St

Lakes 6.99 Private Crossing Superior 

Lakes 5.49 Public Flashing Signal Superior 28th St

Source: BNSF Track Charts
APPENDIX L 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

• Table A: Population, Households and Race 

• Table B: Income and Poverty 

NLX Environmental Assessment L-1 February 2013

TABLE A

POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND RACE

2010 CENSUS

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 5,303,925 100% 1,152,425 100% 330,844 100% 37,816 100% 16,239 100% 37,816 100% 35,386 100% 200,226 100%

 • White 4,524,062 85.3% 856,834 74.4% 287,802 87.0% 36,319 96.0% 15,754 97.0% 36,319 96.0% 31,727 89.7% 186,212 93.0%

 • Minorities 1,030,121 14.7% 373,267 25.6% 55,062 13.0% 2,079 4.0% 699 3.0% 2,079 4.0% 4,143 10.3% 16,423 7.0%

 - Black 274,412 5.2% 136,262 11.8% 14,503 4.4% 245 0.6% 55 0.3% 245 0.6% 498 1.4% 2,739 1.4%

 - AIAN (1) 60,916 1.1% 10,591 0.9% 2,257 0.7% 174 0.5% 90 0.6% 174 0.5% 2,086 5.9% 4,477 2.2%

 - Asian 214,234 4.0% 71,905 6.2% 12,868 3.9% 309 0.8% 53 0.3% 309 0.8% 160 0.5% 1,774 0.9%

 - NHPI (2) 2,156 0.0% 506 0.0% 104 0.0% 19 0.1% 3 0.0% 19 0.1% 4 0.0% 64 0.0%

 - Other Race 103,000 1.9% 38,878 3.4% 4,789 1.4% 134 0.4% 34 0.2% 134 0.4% 56 0.2% 445 0.2%

 - Two or More Races 125,145 2.4% 37,449 3.2% 8,521 2.6% 616 1.6% 250 1.5% 616 1.6% 855 2.4% 4,515 2.3%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 250,258 4.7% 77,676 6.7% 12,020 3.6% 582 1.5% 214 1.3% 582 1.5% 484 1.4% 2,409 1.2%

(1) AIAN = American Indian or Alaska Native

(2) NHPI = Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander

(3) Those of Hispanic Origin may consider themselves white or of another race; therefore, population totals and percentages will be greater than 100 percent

Anoka County

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 3,281 100% 2,724 100% 6,365 100% 5,393 100% 4,431 100% 3,125 100% 4,736 100%

 • White 3,019 92.0% 2,556 93.8% 5,938 93.3% 5,011 92.9% 3,664 82.7% 2,846 91.1% 4,107 86.7%

 • Minorities 363 8.0% 213 6.2% 539 6.7% 491 7.1% 995 17.3% 373 8.9% 789 13.3%

 - Black 53 1.6% 36 1.3% 138 2.2% 104 1.9% 301 6.8% 81 2.6% 252 5.3%

 - AIAN (1) 8 0.2% 9 0.3% 25 0.4% 7 0.1% 35 0.8% 26 0.8% 32 0.7%

 - Asian 76 2.3% 78 2.9% 136 2.1% 144 2.7% 173 3.9% 55 1.8% 156 3.3%

 - NHPI (2) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

 - Other Race 30 0.9% 9 0.3% 27 0.4% 22 0.4% 91 2.1% 27 0.9% 59 1.2%

 - Two or More Races 95 2.9% 36 1.3% 100 1.6% 103 1.9% 166 3.7% 90 2.9% 128 2.7%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 101 3.1% 45 1.7% 112 1.8% 109 2.0% 228 5.1% 94 3.0% 160 3.4%

Isanti County Pine County St. Louis County

Tract 502.22 Tract 506.08 Tract 507.04

Demographic Group

State of Minnesota

Tract 502.08 Tract 502.17 Tract 502.21

Hennepin County Anoka County

Source: Year 2010 U.S. Census Data SF 1 (Tables P3, 8, 15)

Demographic Group

Kanabec County Carlton County

Tract 507.02
NLX Environmental Assessment L-2 February 2013

TABLE A

POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND RACE

2010 CENSUS

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 6,229 100% 3,489 100% 4,703 100% 4,289 100% 4,985 100% 3,733 100% 2,409 100%

 • White 5,509 88.4% 2,870 82.3% 4,089 86.9% 3,682 85.8% 3,960 79.4% 2,400 64.3% 1,784 74.1%

 • Minorities 851 11.6% 761 17.7% 743 13.1% 713 14.2% 1,265 20.6% 1,659 35.7% 832 25.9%

 - Black 224 3.6% 297 8.5% 221 4.7% 258 6.0% 443 8.9% 700 18.8% 294 12.2%

 - AIAN (1) 21 0.3% 32 0.9% 34 0.7% 25 0.6% 38 0.8% 56 1.5% 42 1.7%

 - Asian 285 4.6% 129 3.7% 185 3.9% 156 3.6% 235 4.7% 245 6.6% 98 4.1%

 - NHPI (2) 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 0.2%

 - Other Race 54 0.9% 53 1.5% 31 0.7% 24 0.6% 104 2.1% 127 3.4% 90 3.7%

 - Two or More Races 134 2.2% 108 3.1% 143 3.0% 144 3.4% 204 4.1% 205 5.5% 95 3.9%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 131 2.1% 142 4.1% 129 2.7% 106 2.5% 240 4.8% 326 8.7% 207 8.6%

Hennepin

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop.

# % of Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 4,641 100% 1,921 100% 3,828 100% 2,813 100% 1,920 100% 2,038 100% 2,084 100%

 • White 3,688 79.5% 1,386 72.1% 2,064 53.9% 1,934 68.8% 1,169 60.9% 1,444 70.9% 1,766 84.7%

 • Minorities 1,314 20.5% 708 27.9% 2,589 46.1% 1,304 31.2% 1,067 39.1% 814 29.1% 414 15.2%

 - Black 379 8.2% 190 9.9% 810 21.2% 330 11.7% 299 15.6% 278 13.6% 120 5.8%

 - AIAN (1) 37 0.8% 76 4.0% 114 3.0% 106 3.8% 83 4.3% 46 2.3% 12 0.6%

 - Asian 144 3.1% 90 4.7% 76 2.0% 66 2.3% 103 5.4% 58 2.8% 89 4.3%

 - NHPI (2) 3 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

 - Other Race 177 3.8% 74 3.9% 452 11.8% 202 7.2% 151 7.9% 108 5.3% 40 1.9%

 - Two or More Races 213 4.6% 104 5.4% 311 8.1% 174 6.2% 115 6.0% 104 5.1% 56 2.7%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 361 7.8% 173 9.0% 825 21.6% 425 15.1% 316 16.5% 220 10.8% 96 4.6%

Demographic Group Tract 6.01 Tract 1005 Tract 1018 Tract 1025 Tract 1026 Tract 1031 Tract 1036

Tract 511.01 Tract 512.06

Demographic Group

Tract 507.07 Tract 507.10 Tract 507.11 Tract 507.12 Tract 512.01
NLX Environmental Assessment L-3 February 2013

TABLE A

POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND RACE

2010 CENSUS

Hennepin County St Louis County

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 3,015 100% 4,291 100% 1,917 100% 1,225 100% 3,082 100% 3,747 100%

 • White 2,302 76.4% 3,217 75.0% 1,475 76.9% 1,028 83.9% 2,384 77.4% 3,459 92.3%

 • Minorities 839 23.6% 1,306 25.0% 480 23.1% 214 16.1% 780 22.6% 343 7.7%

 - Black 219 7.3% 612 14.3% 144 7.5% 68 5.6% 223 7.2% 36 1.0%

 - AIAN (1) 42 1.4% 67 1.6% 141 7.4% 36 2.9% 207 6.7% 70 1.9%

 - Asian 303 10.0% 222 5.2% 84 4.4% 11 0.9% 36 1.2% 40 1.1%

 - NHPI (2) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 1 0.0% 1 0.0%

 - Other Race 54 1.8% 37 0.9% 7 0.4% 1 0.1% 15 0.5% 4 0.1%

 - Two or More Races 95 3.2% 136 3.2% 66 3.4% 78 6.4% 216 7.0% 137 3.7%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 126 4.2% 232 5.4% 38 2.0% 17 1.4% 82 2.7% 55 1.5%

TABLE A

POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND RACE

2010 CENSUS

Superior

# % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of Pop. # % of 

Pop. # % of Pop.

Population 5686986 100% 44,159 100% 4438 100% 4147 100% 3477 100% 2257 100%

 • White 4902067 86.2% 41,166 93.2% 4011 90.4% 3946 95.2% 3268 94.0% 1916 84.9%

 • Minorities 1120975 13.8% 3,487 6.8% 497 9.6% 230 4.8% 245 6.0% 388 15.1%

 - Black 359148 6.3% 486 1.1% 82 1.8% 22 0.5% 25 0.7% 78 3.5%

 - AIAN (1) 54526 1.0% 868 2.0% 140 3.2% 76 1.8% 65 1.9% 107 4.7%

 - Asian 129234 2.3% 376 0.9% 36 0.8% 20 0.5% 34 1.0% 35 1.6%

 - NHPI (2) 1827 0.0% 8 0.0% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

 - Other Race 135867 2.4% 82 0.2% 8 0.2% 11 0.3% 4 0.1% 3 0.1%

 - Two or More Races 104317 1.8% 1,173 2.7% 159 3.6% 71 1.7% 81 2.3% 118 5.2%

 • Hispanic Origin (3) 336056 5.9% 494 1.1% 70 1.6% 29 0.7% 36 1.0% 47 2.1%

Demographic Group

Wisconsin Douglas County Tract 206 Tract 207 Tract 208 Tract 211

Demographic Group

Tract 1037 Tract 1262 Tract 19 Tract 20 Tract 156 Tract 158
NLX Environmental Assessment L-4 February 2013

TABLE B

INCOME AND POVERTY

2000 CENSUS

Demographic Group State of 

Minnesota

Hennepin 

County

Anoka 

County

Isanti 

County

Kanabec 

County

Pine 

County

Carlton 

County

St. Louis 

County

Douglas 

County

Population 4,794,144 1,092,571 294,583 30,832 16,239 25,111 35,386 192,585 41,918

Number of Households 1,896,209 456,278 106,468 11,266 5,759 9,908 12,064 82,720 17,787

Number of Families 1,262,953 269,112 79,921 8,487 4,157 6,922 8,370 51,815 11,321

Median household income 

in 1999 (dollars) $47,111 $51,711 $57,754 $50,127 $38,520 $37,379 $40,021 $36,306 $35,226

Median family income in 

1999 (dollars) $56,874 $65,985 $64,261 $55,996 $43,603 $44,058 $48,406 $47,134 $43,813

Per capita income in 1999 

(dollars) $23,198 $28,789 $23,297 $20,348 $17,441 $17,445 $18,073 $18,982 $17,638

Percent of population for 

whom poverty status is 

determined - all ages 

(income in 1999 below 

poverty level) (1)

7.9% 8.3% 4.2% 5.7% 8.6% 11.3% 6.8% 12.1% 11.0%

Percent of families for 

whom poverty status is 

determined (income in 

1999 below poverty level)

5.1% 5.0% 2.9% 4.0% 6.4% 7.8% 5.4% 7.2% 7.6%

TABLE B

INCOME AND POVERTY

2000 CENSUS

Hennepin Co

Demographic Group Tract 6.01 Tract 35.01 Tract 35.02

Tract 

1005 Tract 1018 Tract 1025 Tract 1026 Tract 1030 Tract 1031

Tract 

1036

Population 4,702 596 728 1,935 3,586 2,826 2,214 1,639 2,112 1,720

Number of Households 2,078 91 500 793 1,484 1,253 853 764 1,111 960

Number of Families 1,1584 104 426 766 584 475 283 414 375

Median household income 

in 1999 (dollars) $40,863 $21,771 $55,556 $31,783 $30,747 $32,470 $35,186 $33,125 $28,829 $46,181

Median family income in 

1999 (dollars) $48,024 $13,750 $76,747 $40,962 $34,808 $42,683 $38,723 $45,703 $40,417 $76,452

Per capita income in 1999 

(dollars) $20,158 $11,844 $53,011 $16,751 $15,563 $17,436 $14,891 $17,887 $20,040 $43,785

Percent of population for 

whom poverty status is 

determined - all ages 

(income in 1999 below 

poverty level) (1)

10.6% 36.6% 2.1% 13.8% 21.8% 17.3% 27.8% 22.0% 17.1% 9.5%

Percent of families for 

whom poverty status is 

determined (income in 

1999 below poverty level)

7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10.8% 17.4% 14.6% 24.6% 23.0% 6.8% 8.8%

Source: Year 2000 U.S. Census Data SF 3 (Tables P10, 53, 77, 82, 87, 90)
NLX Environmental Assessment L-5 February 2013

TABLE B

INCOME AND POVERTY

2000 CENSUS

Anoka Duluth

Demographic Group Tract 502.08 Tract 502.22 Tract 506.08

Tract 

507.02

Tract 

507.04

Tract 

507.07

Tract 

507.09

Tract 

507.10

Tract 

507.11

Tract 

507.12 Tract 19 Tract 20 Tract 25 Tract 27 Tract 28 Tract 32

Population 3,287 5,016 4,907 3,138 4,750 4,476 2,560 3,544 5,139 4,207 1,839 1,180 832 1,259 965 832

Number of Households 990 1,482 1,958 1,138 1,764 1,383 1,060 1,331 1,717 1,682 1,419 577 490 537 411 397

Number of Families 884 1,345 1,290 885 1,356 1,267 676 951 1,447 1,036 87 281 123 322 220 186

Median household income 

in 1999 (dollars) $69,861 $84,634 $49,784 $54,068 $53,910 $77,993 $49,943 $54,051 $68,460 $51,044 $9,804 $27,986 $13,810 $28,750 $17,270 $17,104

Median family income in 

1999 (dollars) $75,107 $85,798 $53,913 $57,829 $57,885 $80,675 $61,473 $61,012 $69,544 $62,131 $22,946 $36,250 $16,797 $34,200 $23,393 $23,750

Per capita income in 1999 

(dollars) $23,152 $26,338 $21,941 $20,461 $22,180 $26,643 $24,295 $21,158 $28,107 $23,334 $10,833 $17,318 $11,405 $13,741 $10,008 $11,293

Percent of population for 

whom poverty status is 

determined - all ages 

(income in 1999 below 

poverty level) (1)

0.5% 1.6% 6.2% 3.9% 5.5% 1.1% 2.7% 6.2% 2.1% 3.4% 43.1% 19.9% 42.5% 19.8% 32.6% 24.5%

Percent of families for 

whom poverty status is 

determined (income in 

1999 below poverty level)

0.0% 0.9% 5.9% 3.3% 3.7% 0.7% 1.2% 4.7% 1.2% 2.3% 0.0% 14.2% 46.3% 14.3% 27.7% 22.6%

TABLE B

INCOME AND POVERTY

2000 CENSUS

N. end

Demographic Group Wisconsin Douglas 

County Tract 201 Tract 202 Tract 206 Tract 208

Population 5,211,603 41,918 1,709 573 4,290 3,299

Number of Households 2,084,544 17,787 813 320 2,067 1,319

Number of Families 1,395,037 11,321 395 111 1,029 930

Median household income 

in 1999 (dollars) $43,791 $35,226 $21,635 $16,548 $26,020 $38,726

Median family income in 

1999 (dollars) $52,911 $43,813 $26,641 $15,202 $33,423 $43,871

Per capita income in 1999 

(dollars) $21,271 $17,638 $12,361 $13,602 $15,790 $16,965

Percent of population for 

whom poverty status is 

determined - all ages 

(income in 1999 below 

poverty level) (1)

8.7% 11.0% 21.4% 40.3% 20.7% 10.7%

Percent of families for 

whom poverty status is 

determined (income in 

1999 below poverty level)

5.6% 7.6% 16.2% 40.5% 17.1% 8.9%

APPENDIX M 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

• NLX Newsletter – November 2009 

• NLX Flyer – July 2010 

• Open House Summary Reports:

- Cambridge – December 3, 2009 

- Coon Rapids – December 8, 2009 

- Superior – December 9, 2009 

- Hinckley – December 10, 2009 

- Duluth – July 27, 2010 

- Minneapolis – July 28, 2010 

- Sandstone – July 29, 2010

- Cambridge – August 3, 2010 

About the MinneapolisDuluth/Superior 

Passenger Rail Alliance

NLX is spearheaded by a 

joint powers board, called the 

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior 

Passenger Rail Alliance. It was 

formed in 2007 to explore options 

for renewing passenger rail service 

in the 155 mile corridor. The 

Alliance works with community 

partners and elected offi cials at 

the local, state and federal levels 

to move NLX forward. Already the 

Alliance has completed a feasibility 

study, continues to work closely with 

the BNSF Railway. The Alliance 

is working with the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation, 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation, and FRA on an 

environmental study anticipated to 

be completed by the end of 2010.

Alliance members include: 

the regional rail authorities of 

Hennepin, Anoka, Isanti, Pine, St. 

Louis and Lake Counties, and the 

cities of Minneapolis and Duluth. 

Also participating are Douglas 

County in Wisconsin, the Mille 

Lacs Band of Ojibwe, the cities 

of Coon Rapids, Cambridge, 

Hinckley, Sandstone and Superior 

in Wisconsin, and other agencies 

along the corridor. The group is led 

by St. Louis County Commissioner 

Steve Raukar, chair, and Anoka 

County Commissioner Dan Erhart, 

vice-chair.

High Speed Passenger Rail is gaining momentum!

Comfortable, accessible, affordable rail service between Minneapolis and 

Duluth has been a vision of federal, state and local leaders. That vision has 

made signifi cant progress toward reality. The proposed action offers an 

opportunity to provide reliable and competitive passenger rail service as a 

viable alternative to vehicular travel by:

• Decreasing travel times;

• Providing safe and reliable transit service; and 

• Providing amenities to improve passenger travel quality and comfort.

Confi rmation of the corridor’s economic viability in the Northern Lights Express 

(NLX) Feasibility Study in 2007 supported funding for the next stage of the 

project. Over the next year, concept-level engineering plans and environmental 

review of NLX will be completed, facilitating completion of plans to begin 

construction in the next 5 years.

Recent accomplishments include:

• NLX was designated one of eight top priorities for development by the 

National Passenger Rail Study Group, headed by the U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation, in December 2007. 

• NLX feasibility study completed in December 2007. 

• Received $1.1 million from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in its 

fi rst Capital Assistance Grant Program.

• $475,000 designated for NLX in the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

• A consultant has been hired and work has begun on environmental review 

and documentation and associated preliminary engineering. 

• $825,000 invested by local cities and counties in the Corridor. 

• $900,000 of Minnesota bonding has been leveraged with the $1.1 million 

from the FRA to start the environmental and preliminary engineering work. 

• In the 2009 Minnesota legislative session, $26 million in bonding for rail 

projects was passed. 

• Four years into the planning process, NLX is uniquely positioned to take 

advantage of funding opportunities through both the 2008 Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act and the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. 

What is High Speed Rail?

High speed rail, just as its name implies, runs at higher maximum speeds than 

conventional rail. Improvements made to typical freight or passenger rail 

tracks to facilitate travel at these higher speeds include welded instead of buttjointed rails and broader curves that allow comfortable travel at higher speeds. 

Parallel tracks and improved rail signaling systems facilitate travel by both 

high speed passenger service and freight rail in the same corridors. Safety 

improvements at roadway crossings better protect both rail and automobile 

travelers.

Minneapolis – Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance 

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS

Newsletter #1 November 2009

....continued other side
Just as importantly, however, is a greater emphasis on passenger comfort 

and convenience. Rail stations are located in conjunction with other 

transportation facilities to allow easy connections to commuter rail, light rail 

transit, and busways as well as automobile facilities. Tickets are purchased 

at the station to enable quick and easy boarding with minimal delays at 

passenger stops. Once on the train, passengers are treated to a relaxing 

comfortable ride and high amenity service.

High speed rail connections between Minneapolis and Duluth will facilitate 

recreational and business travel alike. Connections in Minneapolis will 

allow continued travel along the Northstar corridor and to the south metro 

area along Hiawatha LRT as well as future LRT lines serving the Twin Cities 

region. Plans are in the works for high speed rail connections to Milwaukee, 

Chicago, and many destinations beyond. 

Related planning efforts also underway

In addition to concept engineering and environmental documentation, a 

number of other planning efforts are underway that will support the NLX 

corridor. These efforts include:

• Station area planning at the Duluth Depot

• Planning for a multi-modal facility connection Northstar Commuter Rail, 

Hiawatha LRT, future Central Corridor LRT and NLX at the new Twins 

Ballpark

• Plans to extend the Northstar corridor to the St. Cloud area

• Station area planning in the communities of Sandstone, Hinkley, 

Cambridge and Mora

• Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Planning including connections from 

Chicago to Minneapolis

• Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan

Evaluating the environmental impacts of NLX

NLX would provide transportation connections for a variety of passengers. 

However, transportation projects have the potential to negatively impact 

communities, natural environments and cultural resources if not planned and 

designed appropriately. Efforts are currently underway to identify critical 

resources in both the urban, suburban and rural areas of the corridor, 

and to take early measures to avoid or minimize impacts to those critical 

resources. NLX staff have initiated coordination with federal, state and 

local agencies to facilitate evaluation efforts.

Input from local communities is also critical to these efforts. The current 

NLX study has planned for meetings at three critical points in the planning 

process – project initiation, evaluation, and review of the environmental 

document – to inform planning and design at critical points in the project 

process. At each point in the process, we will hold meetings at a variety of 

locations throughout the corridor to encourage participation from residents 

and businesses.

The fi rst series of meetings will be held December 3 – December 10, 2009. 

Please see sidebar – for more information about meeting locations. If 

you are not able to join us for one of these meetings, please visit the NLX 

website at www.NorthernLightsExpress.org to review project materials 

and provide your input via email. Your insights and input will be carefully 

considered and are appreciated.

Upcoming 

Public Meetings

Please join us at one of the following 

public meetings to learn about 

plans to advance the NLX corridor. 

Representatives of the Alliance and 

the consultant team will be available 

to answer your questions and receive 

input. Your participation is important!

Directions to each meeting location will be 

posted to www.NorthernLightsExpress.org

Cambridge, Minnesota

Thursday, December 3, 2009, 4:30 – 6:00 pm

Brief presentation at 5 pm

Armed Forces Reserve Community Center – 

Assembly Hall

505 Spirit River Drive (County Road 70)

Cambridge, MN 55008

Coon Rapids, Minnesota

Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 4:30 – 6:30 pm

Brief presentation at 5 pm

Anoka-Ramsey Community College

– Legacy Room (2nd Floor)

11200 Mississippi Blvd. NW

Coon Rapids, MN 55433

Superior, Wisconsin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 4:30 – 6:30 pm

Brief presentation at 5 pm

Superior Middle School - Cafeteria

3626 Hammond Ave., Superior, WI 54880

Hinkley, Minnesota

Thursday, December 10, 2009, 4:30 – 6:30 pm

Brief presentation at 5 pm

Fine Arts Center – Lobby 

(enter from east parking lots at HinckleyFinlayson High School)

201 Main St. E., Hinckley, MN 55037

For more information visit

www.NorthernLightsExpress.org

Bob Manzoline, St. Louis & Lake 

Regional Rail Authority,

phone: (218)254-2575

Jon Olson, Anoka County,

phone: (763)323-5789
About the MinneapolisDuluth/Superior 

Passenger Rail Alliance

NLX is spearheaded by a 

joint powers board, called the 

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior 

Passenger Rail Alliance. It was 

formed in 2007 to explore options 

for renewing passenger rail service 

in the 155 mile corridor. The 

Alliance works with community 

partners and elected officials at 

the local, state and federal levels 

to move NLX forward. Already the 

Alliance has completed a feasibility 

study, continues to work closely with 

the BNSF Railway. The Alliance 

is working with the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation, 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation, and FRA on an 

environmental study anticipated to 

be completed by the end of 2010.

Alliance members include: 

the regional rail authorities of 

Hennepin, Anoka, Isanti, Pine, St. 

Louis and Lake Counties, and the 

cities of Minneapolis and Duluth. 

Also participating are Douglas 

County in Wisconsin, the Mille 

Lacs Band of Ojibwe, the cities 

of Coon Rapids, Cambridge, 

Hinckley, Sandstone and Superior 

in Wisconsin, and other agencies 

along the corridor. The group is led 

by St. Louis County Commissioner 

Steve Raukar, chair, and Anoka 

County Commissioner Dan Erhart, 

vice-chair.

Minneapolis – Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance 

Northern Lights Express

Northern Lights Express Update: July 2010

Please join us!

Come hear about progress on the Northern Lights Express (NLX) Minneapolis to 

Duluth/Superior high speed passenger rail project since last December’s public 

meetings. Learn more about ongoing study results, a recent public opinion 

survey, agency coordination activities, and connections to other transit options 

and destinations.

Duluth

Tuesday, July 27, 5 to 7 p.m.

The Depot, Great Hall

506 W. Michigan St.

Parking available in ramps

From I-35, take Mesaba Avenue exit and turn onto Fifth Avenue West. 

The Depot is one block west.

Minneapolis

Wednesday, July 28, 5 to 7 p.m.

Hennepin County Environmental Services Building

417 N. Fifth St.

Located next to Target Field and easily accessible by transit

Enter from 6th Avenue (see www.NorthernLightsExpress.org for a map)

Free parking available after 5 p.m.

Sandstone

Thursday, July 29, 6 to 8 p.m.

Sandstone Senior Center

206 N. Main St.

From I-35, take Sandstone exit and turn east onto Highway 23. 

Take Highway 123 to the right, which turns into Main Street. 

The Senior Center is inside the American Legion.

Cambridge

Tuesday, August 3, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.

Armed Forces Reserve Community Center

505 Spirit River Drive (County Road 70)

From Highway 65, take exit for Highway 95 (First Avenue) and turn west onto 

Highway 95. Drive through Cambridge and take a left on County Road 70 

(Spirit River Drive).

Contact:

Bob Manzoline, Executive Director 

Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Passenger Rail Alliance,

phone: (218)254-2575

Email: bmanzoline@mndiscoverycenter.com

 For more information visit: www.NorthernLightsExpress.org

Summary of Public Meeting 1 1 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

CAMBRIDGE, MINNESOTA

December 3, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Thursday, December 3, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the 

Armed Forces Reserve Community Center, Cambridge, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on November 19, 2009. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown 

and Birdie Oddo. Additionally, newsletters announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of November 23, 2009. A PDF of the 

newsletter was emailed to the NLX Alliance Board meeting notification email list 

(approximately 90 people) on November 19, 2009. A reminder email was sent to the 

NLX Alliance Board meeting notification list the week of the meeting.

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance Board: Bob Manzoline

Jeanne Witzig

Commissioner Larry Southerland 

Mn/DOT: Dave Christianson

SRF Consulting: Chuck Gonderinger

Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 73 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:00. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. Copies of the presentation boards are attached.
Summary of Public Meeting 1 2 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of seven comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and no 

comments were received after the meeting as of December 14, 2009. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Project Process

• Questions about project timeline 

• Meeting times are too early

Project Cost

• Concerns about cost estimates

• Will the Hinckley Casino participate in the cost?

• Support for project even though cost is high 

Station Location 

• Keep the number of stations to a minimum

• Concerns about a station near the Cambridge Mall due to traffic flow and 

increased development (comment from nearby resident) 

Issues for Further Study

• Concerns about roadway/rail crossings

• Could the project revitalize the Cambridge Airport?

• Concerns about noise 

• Price should be competitive with cost of driving 

• Allow flexible departures from stations or allow transfers to allow passengers to 

get off train and visit local businesses and tourist sites` 

Support for project

• Support for NLX as a transportation connection within the state and beyond 

• Support for positive impacts to businesses that NLX could bring 

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 1\Open House 

Summary 091203.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 1 1 December 3, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA

December 8, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Tuesday, December 8, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the 

Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on November 19, 2009. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown 

and Birdie Oddo. Additionally, newsletters announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of November 23, 2009. A reminder email 

was sent to the NLX Alliance Board list the week of the meeting.

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance Board: Jeanne Witzig

Commissioner Dan Erhart

SRF Consulting: Chuck Gonderinger

Nancy Frick

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of ten people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:00. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 
Summary of Public Meeting 1 2 December 3, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Written Comments

A total of three comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and no 

comments were received after the meeting as of December 14, 2009. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Project Cost 

• What is the projected fare?

• What is the comparative cost of adding a lane to 35E? 

• When will the generated revenue be greater than the cost of operation?

Issues for Further Study

• How many permanent jobs will the project create?

• Access to/from 610 to Foley Station would allow for greater economic 

development opportunities 

Support for project

• Concerns about lack of public interest in the project study 

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 1\Open House 

Summary 20091208.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 1 1 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN

December 9, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the 

Superior Middle School, Superior, Wisconsin. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on November 19, 2009. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown 

and Birdie Oddo. Additionally, newsletters announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of November 23, 2009. A reminder email 

was sent to the NLX Alliance Board list the week of the meeting.

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance Board: Jeanne Witzig

Bob Manzoline 

Commissioner Nick Baker

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 18 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:00. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 
Summary of Public Meeting 1 2 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Written Comments

A total of three comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and two

comments were received after the meeting as of December 17, 2009. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Project Cost

• Concerns about study costs 

• Questions about overall project costs 

• Concerns about tax impacts to states and municipalities

• More emphasis should be placed on the local match and funding sources 

Issues for Further Study

• Questions about affordability of fare 

• Will the line connect with light rail in the Twin Cities?

• Will the terminal in Superior or Duluth include a multimodal transportation 

facility?

• Coordinate service with the proposed Bethel-Minneapolis commuter service

Support for project

• Concerns about lack of public interest in the project study

• Concerns about cost of studies to Superior and Douglas County 

• Would like to see NLX as a local referendum 

• Train service is needed to augment and coordinate with airline travel to reduce 

traffic and exhaust, provide a more fuel-efficient option, and bring economic 

growth

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 1\Open House 

Summary 20091209rev.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 1 1 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

HINCKLEY, MINNESOTA

December 10, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Thursday, December 10, 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the 

Hinckley Fine Arts Center, Hinckley, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on November 19, 2009. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown 

and Birdie Oddo. Additionally, newsletters announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of November 23, 2009. A reminder email 

was sent to the NLX Alliance Board list the week of the meeting.

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance Board: Jeanne Witzig

Bob Manzoline 

Commissioner Dan Erhart

Commissioner Doug Carlson 

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 34 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:00. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. 
Summary of Public Meeting 1 2 December 14, 2009 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of ten comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and no 

comments were received after the meeting as of December 14, 2009. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Project Cost

• Concerns about funding and federal debt 

Issues for Further Study

• Difficult for Hinckley to plan for a station since the casino loop plans are not 

known 

• Concerns about use of eminent domain – “not necessary to allow transportation to 

a remote area.”

• Concerns about freight train congestion with the addition of passenger rail 

• Questions about the number of trains through town each day 

• Does BNSF support the track upgrades necessary for high speed passenger rail?

• Consider using the Munger Trail for a connection into Duluth 

• Would like to see Hinckley station in Hinckley rather than at the casino 

• Concerns about whether the project would require taking of the Senior Center 

land, but could be okay if the facility is relocated 

• Will the casino be willing to work with the federal agency that oversees railroads? 

• Concerns about safety and access for an unregulated crossing 

• Questions about station locations 

• Congestion reduction is not needed outside the Twin Cities area 

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 1\Open House 

Summary 20091210rev.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 2 1 July 27, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

DULUTH, MINNESOTA

July 27, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the St. 

Louis County Heritage and Arts Center (The Depot), Duluth, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on July 13, 2010. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown and 

Birdie Oddo. Additionally, flyers announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of July 13, 2010. A PDF of the newsletter 

was emailed to the NLX Alliance Board meeting notification email list (approximately 90 

people) on July 13, 2010. 

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance: Bob Manzoline, NLX Exec Dir

Jeanne Witzig, KHA

Ken Buehler, NLX staff

Steve Fecker, NLX staff

SRF Consulting: Nancy Frick

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of six people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:30. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. Copies of the presentation boards are attached. 
Summary of Public Meeting 2 2 July 27, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of one comment was received at the night of the Public Meeting and no comments 

were received after the meeting as of August 5, 2010. The comments are summarized 

below. 

Summary of Comments

Support for project

• NLX will be beneficial to the hospitality industry near the Duluth Depot and 

should be used as a marketing opportunity. The project should coordinate with 

local hotels and businesses to offer discounts for riders. 

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 2\Open House 

Summary 100727rev.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 2 1 July 28, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

July 28, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the 

Hennepin County Environmental Services Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on July 13, 2010. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown and 

Birdie Oddo. Additionally, flyers announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of July 13, 2010. A PDF of the newsletter 

was emailed to the NLX Alliance Board meeting notification email list (approximately 90 

people) on July 13, 2010. 

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance: Jeanne Witzig, KHA

Joe Gladke, Hennepin County 

Kim Benson, Hennepin County 

Frank Pafko, Mn/DOT 

Jill Brown, NLX staff

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 22 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 5:30. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. Copies of the presentation boards are attached. 
Summary of Public Meeting 2 2 July 28, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of one comment was received at the night of the Public Meeting and no comments 

were received after the meeting as of August 5, 2010. The comments are summarized 

below. 

Summary of Comments

Issues for Further Study

• Concerns about diesel exhaust exposure for downtown Minneapolis residents due 

to staging/idling BNSF trains.

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 2\Open House 

Summary 100728rev.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 2 1 July 29, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

SANDSTONE, MINNESOTA

July 29, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Thursday, July 29, 2010 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the 

Sandstone Senior Center, Sandstone, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on July 13, 2010. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown and 

Birdie Oddo. Additionally, flyers announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of July 13, 2010. A PDF of the newsletter 

was emailed to the NLX Alliance Board meeting notification email list (approximately 90 

people) on July 13, 2010. 

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance: Bob Manzoline, NLX Exec Dir

Jeanne Witzig, KHA

Commissioner Doug Carlson, NLX Board 

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 47 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 6:30. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. Copies of the presentation boards are attached. 
Summary of Public Meeting 2 2 July 29, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of five comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and no 

comments were received after the meeting as of August 5, 2010. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Project Process

• Let the planning process proceed without political intervention. 

Sandstone Facilities

• Bring station and/or maintenance facility to Sandstone. 

Issues/Concerns for Further Study

• Parking cost and availability at stations.

• Suggestion for the Hinckley stop to stay on existing rail and use a shuttle to reach 

the casino to reduce cost and environmental impacts. 

Support for project

• Support for NLX as an environmentally friendly travel mode easier than driving

• Encourage commuters to use NLX to encourage people to move to Sandstone and 

create jobs and housing. 

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 2\Open House 

Summary 100729.doc
Summary of Public Meeting 2 1 August 3, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

 

 SRF No. 0096894

NORTHERN LIGHTS EXPRESS PROJECT

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OPEN HOUSE

CAMBRIDGE, MINNESOTA

August 3, 2010 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. 

Introduction

A Public Information Open House for the Northern Lights Express high speed passenger 

rail project was held on Tuesday, August 3, 2010 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the 

Armed Forces Reserve Community Center, Cambridge, Minnesota. 

Notice of Public Information Meeting

Press releases announcing the Public Information Meeting were distributed to press 

contacts by SRF staff on July 13, 2010. The contacts were provided by Jill Brown and 

Birdie Oddo. Additionally, flyers announcing the meeting were mailed to area 

community facilities and agencies the week of July 13, 2010. A PDF of the newsletter 

was emailed to the NLX Alliance Board meeting notification email list (approximately 90 

people) on July 13, 2010. 

Attendees

The following agencies had representatives at the meeting to explain the project and 

answer questions: 

NLX Alliance: Bob Manzoline, NLX Exec Dir

Jeanne Witzig, KHA

Commissioner Larry Southerland, NLX Board 

Commissioner, Dan Erhart NLX Board Co-Chair

Dave Christianson, Mn/DOT

SRF Consulting: Beth Bartz

Kelcie Young

An attendance record sheet was prominently displayed on a table at the front door and all 

persons entering were asked to sign in for the record. A total of 53 people signed in. 

Summary of Open House 

The meeting was an informal open house and with a short presentation at about 7:00. 

Attendees viewed informational exhibits and engaged in one-on-one or small group 

discussions with the project staff. Boards shown at the meeting were 36 by 48 inches in 

size. Copies of the presentation boards are attached. 
Summary of Public Meeting 2 2 August 3, 2010 

Northern Lights Express Project 

Comment forms were made available to meeting attendees. Meeting attendees were 

encouraged to submit comments either directly at the meeting in a comment box, or by 

mail. Contact information for project staff was provided in the project newsletter. 

Written Comments

A total of three comments were received at the night of the Public Meeting and no 

comments were received after the meeting as of August 5, 2010. The comments are 

summarized below. 

Summary of Comments

Issues for Further Study

• Trains in Europe have “regular” and “limited stop” or express service, and 

perhaps NLX could use that model to decide how many stations are needed. 

Support for project

• Support for NLX as a transportation option for commuters to keep residents in the 

area.

H:\Projects\6894\_Correspondence\Meetings\Public Information Meetings\Meeting series 2\Open House 

Summary 100803rev.doc